ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts: Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Highways (Obstruction by Body Corporate) Act 2004 Human Tissue Act 2004 Children Act 2004

Oral Answers to Questions

HOME OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Support

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of (a) community support officers and (b) neighbourhood wardens.

David Blunkett: Community support officers and wardens have been widely welcomed across the country, wherever they have been deployed. Twenty-seven forces have undertaken evaluations, which are now being collated and will be published in December. The Nuffield Foundation funded a report by Leeds university, which was published on 28 October, and an independent review of wardens was published in May this year.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that my borough joins in the view that community support officers and wardens are welcome. Indeed, we already have 72 neighbourhood wardens and we are looking forward to a further 30.
	I would be grateful if the Home Secretary would look further into a London-wide issue. The neighbourhood policing fund, as I understand it, will contribute £24,500 per community support officer, whereas the average cost of recruiting and training CSOs in London is £28,500. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Metropolitan police and the 33 London local authorities will not be disadvantaged when they put in bids in the future, as other authorities around the country are doing?

David Blunkett: For understandable reasons connected with recruitment, the Metropolitan force took the view that salaries should be generally higher than in the rest of the country. It now has 1,800 community support officers and, as far as I am aware, faces no difficulties with recruitment. We will ensure that London is not disadvantaged, but it is a fact that the Met's own evaluation reveals a 70 per cent. improvement in reassurance and confidence in policing in areas where CSOs have been heavily deployed.

John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will know that community support officers have played a crucial and effective part in the creation of ward-based neighbourhood teams, which have started to spread across the London boroughs. There are two in my own constituency, led by Sergeants John Fish and Paul George. The schemes have proved very effective and are highly thought of, certainly in my area. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the funding of the Met is sustained at an appropriate level to ensure that the future creation of neighbourhood teams continues at the present rate? All wards in Greater London should have neighbourhood teams as soon as possible.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We saw the scheme working well when I was in Bexley with the Prime Minister last week. The £50 million allocated by the Chancellor this autumn will fund additional community support officers across the country. The Metropolitan force will receive, of course, a generous share of the fully funded posts for the forthcoming 12 months. In addition, there is the neighbourhood policing fund allocation and the police grant. As I said last week, we are doing our utmost to ensure that the police grant provides encouragement for forces to sustain and continue the investment that they are already making.

Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind that the local government settlement in Wales will be 4.8 per cent. and the North Wales police force requires 7.4 per cent. just to stand still, does the Home Secretary realise that there will have to be a substantial real increase in the police grant for Welsh police forces? That applies if community support officers are to be retained, let alone further recruited.

David Blunkett: I have a great deal of sympathy with forces trying to ensure that they can manage competing demands. However, given the funding that Welsh police forces have generally received over recent years and the substantial specific funding they have received not just for community support officers but for the introduction of Airwave, DNA forensics, reinforcement of training and other programmes, I do not accept for a minute the hon. Gentleman's figures on what is needed to stand still. I hope that Members will weigh with a degree of common sense the claims made by police authorities at the moment, because we are trying to ensure that their original fears can be allayed.

Jim Knight: I thank the Home Secretary for visiting my constituency last month, where he saw at first hand the excellent work and effectiveness of community support officers in the Weston community in Weymouth. I ask him to ensure that Dorset gets its fair share of the £50 million that he has announced so that we can extend community support officers to other communities such as Portland in my constituency.

David Blunkett: I will certainly do my best to do that. I may tell my hon. Friend that that was the first visit I have ever made during which I met the entire majority in one day—[Interruption.] It was a great pleasure to do so.

Angela Watkinson: The similarity in uniforms of police community support officers and police constables is such that many of my constituents have been fooled into thinking that there are more police on the streets of Upminster. Is not that what the Home Secretary really means by effectiveness?

David Blunkett: I think that the hon. Lady will find that there are more uniformed police on the streets of her constituency, thanks to the enormous investment we have made and as part of the 13,000 uplift in police over the past seven and a half years. It is very important, however, not to confuse things. What we are seeing on our streets is a uniformed presence with the authority to be able to work with local people to find solutions. The Nuffield report found that where those officers were deployed correctly alongside and working to uniformed police officers, they had a dramatic impact on reduction in crime.
	There is a simple message here. Not a single Member of this House has to have community support officers or has to press for additional resources for those officers for their area. If the hon. Lady is so strongly against them, I suggest that she starts to petition in her community against deploying community support officers. I am sure that the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner will take what she says very seriously when it comes to the allocation of resources to her constituency.

Illegal Immigration

Gwyn Prosser: What plans he has to visit Dover to discuss the impact of his measures to control illegal immigration.

Des Browne: Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit Dover in the near future, but I welcome the opportunity to highlight the impact that the asylum and immigration measures that we have taken have had there. We have significantly strengthened our borders by the closure of Sangatte, by deploying new detection technology in France and by developing our juxtaposed controls in northern France, culminating in full United Kingdom immigration controls in Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk since 3 October 2004. As a result, clandestine entry in Kent fell by 65 per cent. during 2003, compared with 2002. That fall has continued in 2004, with a 23 per cent. decrease in clandestines in Kent in the first six months of 2004, compared with the last six months of 2003.

Gwyn Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I assure him that it reflects the situation in Dover, where illegal immigration and working have been reduced hugely. Does he accept that there is still far more to do? Although the number of asylum seekers coming through the port has reduced to just one or two a day, which compares well with figures we had in previous years, we can still take further action. Does he agree that the introduction of a secure identity card will go further towards cracking down on illegal immigrants and on traffickers and illegal working?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I agree that the introduction of a secure biometrically based identity card will go a significant way further to secure our borders.

Eric Forth: How?

Des Browne: A sedentary voice asks "How", and the answer is comparatively simple: it will be done by ensuring that those who are in this country legally have to have a biometrically based identity card. We are confident in the knowledge that the absence of such an identity card—which has, of course, been part of the culture of this country—has been a pull factor to illegal immigrants for many years.
	To my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), I may say that there is further evidence on the impact of our measures. The number of detections in Calais increased by 36 per cent. in the first six months of 2004, compared with the first six months of 2003. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the French Interior Minister Mr. de Villepin in Calais only this morning, and he was shown evidence that when Sangatte was open there were routinely about 2,000 asylum seekers in the Calais area. The police in France now know that there are only about 100 at any given time.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that the number of work permits granted in-country has more than trebled? Will he say where all those people come from and whether or not they are all perfectly legal?
	Will the Minister also tell the House why Amin Buratee, from Whitstable, was picked up at six in the morning one day last week, just six months before he is due to take his A-levels? His entire family in Afghanistan has been murdered, as is accepted by the Home Office. Could not he at least be allowed to get as far as his A-levels? Is it really necessary to pick soft targets to massage the figures?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question because it is important for the House to know that the number of work permits granted has increased significantly. As he knows, applications for work permits are made by employers. They are a reflection of the needs of employers and can be granted only if the criteria are met. Work permits do not necessarily mean that those who are granted them will receive entry clearance to remain in or enter the country.
	I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises an individual case, but he will understand why I cannot, as an Executive Minister, go into the detail of that case. In general terms, all cases are robustly and fully examined by the immigration and nationality directorate and by the independent appellate authorities before any removal action is contemplated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to re-judge cases that have been judged by the independent appellate authorities or to substitute my decision for theirs as to the appropriate action in any individual case. I hope that he does not seek to persuade me to do so.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I take my hon. Friend the Minister back to Dover, which is the subject of the question? No doubt the work of Dover harbour police has complemented that of the immigration authorities and Customs and Excise. That good practice should be extended to all the ports in the UK, because the absence of a national ports police service leaves us vulnerable. Will my hon. Friend consider the provision of such a service for ports that have no policing to tighten them up?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. He will know that a review of border controls is under way, involving all the agencies that operate at the border. The issues that arise will be considered in the context of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and I will ensure that those responsible take into account what he has had to say.

Humfrey Malins: Between May and September, 91,000 people from the new member states of the EU applied to register to work here. Last week, the Minister accepted that up to 40 per cent. of them—or 35,000—were here illegally before 1 May. May I ask the Minister two simple questions? First, if they were here illegally, how did they get here? Secondly, in May, was he or anyone else in his Department aware that they were here illegally?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question because it gives me an opportunity to highlight what an astounding success—

Humfrey Malins: Answer the question.

Des Browne: I will in a moment.
	The hon. Gentleman's question gives me an opportunity to highlight what a success opening our labour markets to workers from the EU accession states has been, in terms of servicing the gaps that existed in certain sectors and skills.

Humfrey Malins: Answer the question.

Des Browne: Well, the hon. Gentleman poses the question on the basis of a false fact. I did not accept that 43 per cent. or anything like that number were in the country illegally—

Humfrey Malins: It is in Hansard.

Des Browne: I venture to suggest that that is not in Hansard, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position. What I did say was that about 43 per cent. of those who registered had either said that they were in the country before 1 May or did not answer that question—[Laughter.] Well, let me explain to those who cannot work it out that that means that some of those people were probably in the country before 1 May, but it does not mean that they were here illegally—[Interruption.] With respect, it does not say so, because—

Paul Goodman: You are in a mess.

Des Browne: The number of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must let the Minister answer.

Des Browne: Even if the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) were right in coming to the conclusion that those people were definitely here illegally, our position in relation to such people would be no different from that of his party when it was in government—or, indeed, that of any Government anywhere in the world. No Government anywhere in the world can know the number of people who are in their country illegally, and no Government in this country have ever been able to give that figure.

Immigration Cases

Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on the backlog of immigration cases at the immigration and nationality directorate.

Des Browne: Asylum cases awaiting initial decision are now at the lowest level for a decade, continue to fall and are likely to reach frictional levels by the end of the current financial year. The number of asylum appeals awaiting processing in the IND is at a record low. At June 2004, 9,000 asylum appeals awaited processing—reduced from 30,000 in December 2002. Figures for non-asylum appeals are not published. There are minimal backlogs of charged cases in the general group. Although the non-charged work-in-progress cases have increased in certain specified areas, the aim is to get all that work to frictional levels by 31 March 2005. Over the past six months, work permit backlogs have increased owing to substantial additional pressures on resources as a result of new work streams, new processes, increased applications and difficulties in recruiting.

Keith Vaz: I appreciate the real efforts made by Ministers and senior officials at the IND to reduce the backlog of immigration cases. However, what shall we, as Members of Parliament, say to constituents who come to our surgeries—as many did to my most recent surgery—clutching letters from senior IND officials, with dates such as April 2003, telling them that they would get a reply to their cases within 16 weeks, yet 18 months later no decisions have been made? Is it not right that we should seriously consider trying to address the problems that we inherited in 1997 by giving the IND additional resources so that we can complete the important work begun when this Government were formed?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, if he wishes to bring individual constituents' cases to my attention I shall be happy to look at them, but I cannot deal with them at the Dispatch Box. He is right to suggest that there were significant delays—for example, when we came to power in 1997 it was routinely taking 22 months for an initial decision to be made on asylum applications. That is now down to two months. Charged general casework, to which he referred, is at frictional levels for this time of the year, and that accounts for about three quarters of the work in the IND. We continue to deliver good service levels and are improving them by the injection of resources and the training of caseworkers. Of course, the Conservatives wish to strip out all that cash, because without it they will not be able to get anywhere near to their promises about police officers.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why the Government find it hard to keep on top of asylum applications is that it is too easy to claim asylum in the United Kingdom? What plans do they have to renegotiate the UN conventions governing asylum, given that they were designed to deal with the problems of refugee Europe after world war two, not with the problems of economic migration that we face today?

Des Browne: The hon. Lady is correct to say that the convention on refugees was not designed for the problems of economic migration, but it is no easier to claim asylum under that convention in the United Kingdom than in any other country in the world—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady now wishes to ask me another question, but the point that she made was that it was easier to claim asylum under the convention here than elsewhere, and it is not.
	The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a process known as convention-plus, which we support, for the modernisation of the convention to enable it better to meet the circumstances of the 21st century. She is right to say that that convention was drafted in post-war western Europe, but what she does not say is that it has also been informed by the developments of the whole of the second part of the 20th century, and by the experience of the whole world. Derogations from the convention would be a denial of that history and would put the United Kingdom in a unique position, which I am sure that most people in this country would not wish to occupy.

Tony Clarke: The Home Department should be congratulated on what has been a dramatic turnaround for applications in asylum cases, but I have to tell the Minister that I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz): at times, it seems that improvements to asylum claims are at the expense of other claims in the IND, especially for exceptional leave to remain. When will we be in a position to set targets across all the functions of the IND, so that all the people who come to our surgeries can expect to receive a time, which will be kept to, within which their applications will be answered?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to suggest that leave to remain is experiencing delays, as I said in association with work permits. Currently, it takes about 12 weeks to process such applications. We have, as he suggested, increased decision-making staff in that sector by 30 per cent. since April 2004 and further staff are being recruited, but Members will appreciate that staff have to be recruited and then trained to do that complex work, so we shall not see the benefits of those recruitments until the training has taken place.

Mark Oaten: The figures published last week on the number of new EU citizens who have applied to the worker registration scheme have shown that a sizeable backlog is developing. In August, 685 applications were outstanding, but in September the number was 2,670. Can the Minister tell us why the figure quadrupled during that period, especially as the number of applications has gone down? Is not that just another example of failed bureaucracy in the Home Office?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that at one stage in the worker registration scheme there was an accumulating backlog, but that has now been significantly reduced. In fact, the majority of applications are dealt with in a week. However, the real concern about the backlog was the fact that the IND was holding on to people's passports while their applications were being processed. We have now changed the rules and passports are being turned around and returned to applicants within 48 hours, so significant improvement has taken place. I think that the hon. Gentleman will discover that we will be at frictional levels in terms of backlog within the comparatively near future.

Forensic Science Service

Colin Burgon: What representations he has received regarding the future organisation of the Forensic Science Service.

Caroline Flint: We have received a broad range of representations from hon. Members, trade unions and others, all of which are being carefully considered.

Colin Burgon: May I draw the attention of the Minister to the recent early-day motion 1522, in which nearly 100 Labour MPs expressed their opposition to privatising forensic science, and also to the submission to the Select Committee on Science and Technology by the Public and Commercial Services Union and Prospect—the trade unions representing people working in forensic science—in which they argued that forensic science should remain in the public sector? What impact have those two pieces of thinking had on Government thinking?

Caroline Flint: We are in consultation with the trade unions and others about those issues; in fact, we held a workshop in July and I am due to meet trade union representatives on 30 November. This is not about privatisation; it is about having a service that remains in the public sector but is privately delivered—a public-private partnership. The reason that we have to look at the situation is that six police forces account for about 47 per cent. of the revenue of the Forensic Science Service. In the past year, the Metropolitan Police Service has moved a share of its work to the private sector, and Thames Valley police force moved its final share of work to the private sector. We want a Forensic Science Service that can deliver for the future, but it has to work in a world where the competition is greater than it has ever been.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept that forensic science will have growing importance in the future in detecting crime and thus in deterring it, as detection is the best way to deter? Will she therefore withhold any restructuring decisions until the Science and Technology Committee has made its report on the Forensic Science Service?

Caroline Flint: Last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his intention radically to change the way in which we deliver forensic science services. We have given evidence to the Select Committee and will listen to what it has to say, but I have to say again to hon. Members that we are dealing with a world in which technology is advancing and other competitors can provide services.
	If we consider the changes in the police forces, we see that the police spend 52 per cent. of their forensic budget on services they provide internally, compared with 48 per cent. on the external market, so we have to recognise those changes while also recognising the very good work of people in the Forensic Science Service, which I hope it will be able continue to deliver, even if in a different form, in the future.

Rob Marris: What representations has my hon. Friend received, other than from the private sector, urging greater private sector involvement in the Forensic Science Service?

Caroline Flint: Well, representations have come from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Police Authorities, for example.

Shoplifting

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has for changing penalties for shoplifting.

Hazel Blears: None. We are satisfied that the range of penalties available for dealing with shoplifting—prosecution, caution, warning and fixed penalty—is sufficient.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that any form of stealing—whether from a shop, a large corporation or an individual—is very serious crime indeed? Does she feel that it is the Government's duty to ensure that all crimes that involve stealing and dishonesty are deal with equally harshly? Surely, any other approach would not only send quite the wrong signal to the criminal fraternity, but undermine the credibility of a criminal justice system.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct on one point—retail theft is an extremely important matter—but I am afraid that he is wrong in almost every other respect. We have given the police a range of options: prosecution, caution and fixed penalty notices. The introduction of fixed penalty notices has been universally welcomed by the police because it enables them to do their job quickly and get back out patrolling the streets, which is what the public want them to do.

Ross Cranston: Does my hon. Friend agree that deterring shoplifting also involves quickly and effectively dealing with offenders? In that light, will she welcome the street bail pilot scheme introduced in the west midlands in line with Government initiatives, whereby people are arrested and immediately bailed so that the police do not have to take them back to the police station or wait for responsible adults to arrive, but can get straight back on patrol to deal with other offenders?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to endorse my hon. and learned Friend's support for the street bail scheme, which is yet another example of the way in which we are changing the service to try to free up police officers to do the front-line work that the public want them to do. I am also delighted that in Lancashire the police have already started to use fixed penalty notices for shoplifting—they have issued 22 fixed penalty notices in the first week. Where police forces really feel that they have a "can do" attitude, they can make a big difference.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise the fact that her astonishingly complacent answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will cause huge anger among the law-abiding public? Are the Government aware that former professional shoplifters have been interviewed and have said that if fixed penalty notices had existed in their time, all that they would have done is shoplift more to enable them to pay the fixed penalties? This is a nonsensical introduction of a new system that will do huge harm. The Government must take such serious dishonesty much more seriously.

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. People who would have previously received perhaps no punishment at all, or perhaps just an informal ticking-off, will now get an £80 on-the-spot fine. With the fixed penalty notices for disorder, we have found that almost 50 per cent. more people have been punished than previously. Not only the police, but shopkeepers will welcome the introduction of fixed penalty notices because they will see people being punished on the spot for shoplifting in their premises.

Peter Pike: Does not the instant fixed penalty system cover a crime that all of us pay for at the end of the day because the cost of the stuff that is stolen from shops must be met by other consumers? In addition, the system involves a quick penalty, which must surely be a bigger deterrent to the petty shoplifter than having to go through the legal system, given that such cases are often not proceeded with and those involved just receive a warning. Is it not a better system than we have had before?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made it clear in the guidance, which we are about to issue, that fixed penalty notices will not be used for persistent shoplifters. They are very much a warning to those people who might be tempted to shoplift that doing so will cost them a great deal of money, so perhaps they had better think twice about it.

David Davis: To bring the Minister back to her responses to my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), she gave it away when she intimated that half the fixed penalty notices issued in the pilot schemes replaced criminal action. [Hon. Members: "No, she did not.] Yes, she did. Does she not see that it is intrinsically wrong for someone to be fined only £80 for stealing £100, let alone the £200 that she originally intended? The real terms of trade are even worse. The average shoplifter gets prosecuted once every 20 offences, so they can steal £2,000 for every £80 fixed penalty. Does she not realise that in the longer term this policy will lead to a large increase in shoplifting?

Hazel Blears: Not at all. In fact, the position will be absolutely the opposite. People who were not prosecuted previously will find that there is a sanction on their behaviour, which is exactly what the Government want. We want to make sure that the police have the tools and the powers to do the job properly. That means not only that they can prosecute and caution, but that they can now issue fixed penalty notices. As I said in an earlier reply, the number of those punished for offences under the public order provisions has increased by 50 per cent. as a result of the introduction of fixed-penalty notices. That means that more offenders are being brought to justice; something that the Government are determined to see happen.

David Davis: Perhaps the Minister should read her own pilot studies. Is she aware, however, that more than half of shoplifting is done by drug addicts to pay for their addiction? Shoplifting provides a large part of the funds flow for the drug trade. Does she not realise that decriminalising the first and, as is discussed on her internet site, second and, perhaps, third shoplifting offence could lead to a significant increase in the problems of drug-dependent petty criminals? Does she really think that this is being tough on the causes of crime?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to know that fixed-penalty notices for shoplifting will not be used where people have problems with drugs or other substance misuse. They are not intended for use with persistent offenders. They are intended for first-time or perhaps second-time low-level offenders. The average fine in the courts is about £78. Now, people will get an on-the-spot fine of £80. That will be significant deterrent. Indeed, the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Retail Consortium and the Rural Shops Alliance have welcomed this additional disposal, which will now be available to our police services to deal with a very important crime.

Police Deployment

Graham Allen: What estimate he has made of the percentage of a police officer's average working day spent (a) processing arrests to charging inside police stations and (b) out on the streets; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The data requested by the hon. Gentleman are not centrally available. We know from the publication on 22 September of the police performance monitoring reports for 2003–04 that the average time spent by all police officers on front-line duties is 63.6 per cent., and we expect that the police service as a whole can improve on that to something nearer 73 per cent. by 2008.

Graham Allen: The people of Nottinghamshire know that we have a record number of police officers in post in Nottinghamshire, but they also ask, "Where are those police officers?" Rather than give senior officers the temptation to backfill the absence of front-line officers who are in station by using police community support officers or neighbourhood wardens, would not it be more sensible to have specialist grades, retired officers or civilians to progress from arrest to charge? Will my hon. Friend look at that? If she does, will she give us some idea of how many extra police officers will be on the streets without a single extra officer needing to be employed?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I am aware of his personal interest in the matter; indeed, he had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall just last week. I am also aware of his hands-on experience, and I know that he has been out with his own force in Nottinghamshire to look at these issues. It is important to involve the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in looking jointly at charging, but we are increasingly seeing more and more civilian staff building cases, taking over roles that were previously carried out by police officers. For example, in Surrey, we now have civilian staff completing case preparation, releasing a whole number of detectives to do the jobs that only they can do.

Roger Gale: Perhaps I can assist the Minister from personal experience. From arrest to charge, it probably takes the average police officer about five hours to process a case. In towns such as Herne Bay or Margate in Kent, where police officers have, of course, to work in pairs on Friday and Saturday nights, there do not need to be many arrests before there is no cover whatever. How many forms does the police officer on the beat have to carry? How much time is spent filling those forms in on the beat, and why are the Government so intent on increasing it?

Hazel Blears: We are absolutely intent on doing the reverse. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nearly 8,000 forms have been made obsolete since we cracked down on the bureaucracy in the system. We are ensuring that more civilian staff are taking over the custody function so that officers are not tied up with unnecessary bureaucracy. I wonder whether he is aware that we have introduced video ID parades, which are freeing up officers. We have also introduced automatic number plate recognition and much better access to fingerprint data, and fixed penalty notices are being issued. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that a range of measures has been designed with the intention of freeing up our police officers so that they can fight crime on the front line. Once we push up the proportion of officers in front-line policing, we should be able to release an extra 12,000 officers over the next three years to do their jobs on behalf of the public.

Brian Jenkins: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but does she not realise that outside the Chamber there is a perception of a police force that is good at paperwork but poor at catching criminals? Surely our assessment of police forces reinforces that, so what are the public to make of that situation?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right; the public want not only a more visible and reassuring presence on their streets, but forces to catch and convict criminals. The best police forces are doing both. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published our White Paper "Building Communities, Beating Crime" last week, which is exactly what we mean to do.

Eric Forth: Even if overall statistics are not available, as the Minister claims, surely she must know how much time a beat officer in a typical police station or police authority spends filling in forms. How much is that, and what is she doing to reduce it?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we introduced the "Diary of a Police Officer" scheme a couple of years ago to find out exactly how time was spent. We have also introduced activity-based costing to determine how police officers spend their time. For the very first time, we have started the process of compiling data about exactly what police officers do. The previous Government did not do that; they did not seem to care what police officers did. They took officers off the streets, put them into cars and got them away from the public. We are determined to get police officers out of their cars and police stations and on to the streets so that they can reassure the public who pay their wages.

Chris Bryant: I do not know when my hon. Friend last had to provide a statement to the police as either a witness to or a victim of crime, but the process is often phenomenally laborious. It involves a police officer writing a statement in pencil, writing it in pen and then getting it typed up before it can finally be signed.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman have personal experience?

Chris Bryant: I do, as a victim of crime. Will the Minister guarantee that in the near future she will examine ways of speeding up the process so that police officers may work faster? That would make things easier for victims and allow us to get police officers out on the beat again.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right that freeing up our police officers must be a priority. Many police forces are introducing a system of mobile data so that officers can key data into portable computers straight away without necessarily going back to the police station. Civilian staff are taking statements in many cases; some are better at doing that than police officers themselves. We are absolutely determined to get the right people in the right place at the right time, doing the right job.

Suspected Terrorists

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism at Belmarsh prison.

David Blunkett: Under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, 17 non-British nationals have been held under the certification system as posing a terrorist risk. One of those is being held under other powers and two have left the country. One individual has had an appeal upheld, one is being held under strict bail conditions and one has been released as no longer posing a serious threat, and thus 11 people are primarily held under the certification system.

Alistair Carmichael: The Home Secretary will no doubt have heard the comments made by Europe's Human Rights Commissioner last week when he said that he could see no justification at all for the detention of 10 inmates in Belmarsh. The right hon. Gentleman will also have seen a report last month by several psychiatrists saying that such detention was having a serious impact on the mental health of those inmates. Is it not time to find a way of implementing the recommendations of the Newton report, as endorsed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on alternatives to such detention?

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that we published a consultation paper at the end of February and have been taking views on how to proceed when dealing with international terrorist threats in circumstances in which we have to secure the information and advice of the security services without putting their sources at risk. Having met the Human Rights Commissioner last week, I found that he was unaware of the independent assessment and review of the mental health services at Belmarsh and that the Prison Service had been awarded beacon status by the national health service.
	We took up Lord Carlile's recommendations that those individuals should be moved to a specific and specially developed facility. We offered such a facility at Woodhill at considerable cost and, on the advice of solicitors, those who are held under part 4 refused to go. We cannot force them to move out of Belmarsh, but we can offer a choice. If solicitors choose, for all the reasons of which we may be aware, to advise their clients not to take that alternative, that choice lies with them, not us.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary will be well aware of the controversy surrounding the introduction of the legislation, which gives him unique powers to hold individuals without charge, trial or access to a normal court. How long does he expect the process to last before legislation is introduced to repeal that section of anti-terrorist legislation to ensure that all cases go through an open criminal court in the normal way, something to which any British national would be entitled?

David Blunkett: There are circumstances in which any British national would not go through an open transparent court system in the usual way. They could be subject to particular restrictions on, for example, a public interest assessment basis. The Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I have been examining that. We will introduce recommendations, subsequent to the current appeal to the House of Lords on derogation, on the way forward.
	We have a choice. Either we hold individuals in the way that we do now, because we cannot remove them from the country on human rights grounds, or we release them, which means that we have to be sure that they will not take life and liberty and organise against us as part of the al-Qaeda network. As the court of superior record and the Appeal Court have affirmed that those concerned are linked with al-Qaeda and pose a threat, it would be irresponsible to release them.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is a matter of principle at stake? It is surely wrong in principle that a dozen or so people should be held in custody, in some cases for more than two years, without being charged or tried. When can those people expect to be either tried or released?

David Blunkett: I am sorry, but the principle that I am following is the protection of the well-being of the British people. If that principle has to be reinforced by using powers that were introduced in exceptional circumstances and voted for by all major parties, we will continue to use them. There are three-monthly reviews of the cases and the appeals that I described have been undertaken. The court of superior record also involved special advocates assigned as legal representatives, and they had the right of appeal to the Appeal Court. We have taken every possible step to protect those people's interests. They are, of course, free to leave the country any time they feel that they can do so without being threatened with death and torture in other nations.

David Winnick: While recognising that my right hon. Friend faces a difficult problem when he is advised that certain individuals—foreign nationals—are an acute terrorist danger, is he nevertheless aware that there is bound to be unease, as expressed today, that people can be held indefinitely without charges? Will he continue to look for ways in which that can be overcome, perhaps along the lines of charging? That would be much better for the laws of our land and our consciences.

David Blunkett: I am certainly aware of the disquiet. Three years ago, we all expressed disquiet at the necessity for introducing the powers. Those were voted for and have to be reaffirmed annually by the House, with a sunset clause in November 2006. What I am seeking are sensible contributions to how we can square the circle of protecting the sources of the advice that we receive and ensuring that those who are in front of the courts receive a fair hearing and fair representation, while protecting the well-being of the British nation. The proportionality and care that we adopted in passing the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is reflected in the limited use of the certification powers, which, when we passed the Act exactly three years ago, were described as a charter to hold hundreds of people without trial. That has not taken place and reviews of the use of the powers by Lord Carlile and the interception of communications commissioner have confirmed that we have used those powers sparingly.

Patrick Mercer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has argued much more eloquently than I could that the holding of those individuals is not only wrong but unjust. Does the Secretary of State accept that every day that those men are detained, they act as a focus for further unrest? One way around that might be to adopt a more thoughtful approach towards evidence. Can he tell us when it will be possible to use intercept intelligence as evidence in court?

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent case as to why he should never be the homeland security tsar for Britain, because discontent regarding the individuals who are held does not exist. If we released them and they continued to pose a risk and colluded on attacks in this country, the unrest at that moment in time would exceed anything that we have experienced here before. Of course, we are prepared to continue examining inceptors' evidence, and we are currently taking the advice of all the security and policing services. Once we have done so, we will make an announcement to the House, but we do not have a panacea for dealing with the problem, at the root of which is admissibility and the nature of the evidence, not the question of whether supporting intercept evidence has been provided.

Clive Soley: Will my right hon. Friend publish a comparison as to the way in which other countries, particularly in western Europe, deal with the problem? As I understand it—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—other countries deport such individuals against their will to countries that we regard as having an unacceptable record of human rights abuses. If that is so, are we not dealing with the problem by keeping them here as long as they wish to stay while also enabling them to go, whereas other countries are simply sending them back to possible torture and death?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right, and there are two aspects to consider. First, the magistrate investigation system in many European countries allows people to be held without being brought to court for very long periods of time. Secondly, some countries with judicial systems and human rights lawyers take a different view from human rights lawyers and the judiciary in our country. I respect their right to do so, which is why we have been careful not to remove people to countries where they might be threatened with death and torture. There is a paradox, however, and to be accused of taking away human rights when we are not removing people because we are concerned about their human rights really takes the biscuit.

Custody Suites

David Heath: What his policy is in respect of maintaining custody suites in operational use.

Paul Goggins: The management of the police estate is a local operational matter for the chief constable or commissioner and the police authority. The Home Office has issued the police buildings design guidance and is in the process of producing a design quality guide for police buildings.

David Heath: We do not hesitate to talk about operational matters in the House. We have heard the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety say that a policeman spends one working hour in every three in the station rather than on the streets fighting crime, and is this not another false economy? Every time a cell is not available for use, police officers who have made an arrest must travel 20 or 30 miles to take a prisoner to a custody suite. Alternatively, they are deterred from making an arrest at all, because they know that they will not be available to fight crime in their own community. Should the Home Office not have a policy of ensuring that as many police cells as possible are available in local communities so that we can fight crime effectively?

Paul Goggins: It is a Home Office responsibility to make sure that there are adequate custody facilities in each area. Over this year and last, we made available £4.7 million in grant aid so that police authorities can provide such facilities, but it is for the police authority to decide where they are located, bearing in mind the need to balance the strategic use of resources and the accessibility of resources to the community. The hon. Gentleman may be encouraged, as I am, to hear of the pilot project in Northumbria, where civilians are staffing custody suites. That has released 91 police officers, who are out doing the job in the community that they joined the police to do.

David Taylor: In my constituency, a relatively recently built police station has a first-rate custody suite which spends most of its time in mothballs, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described. That means that those arrested have to be taken considerable distances to Loughborough and beyond. The argument is, as my hon. Friend knows, that the framework for the staffing of custody suites is so onerous that chief constables are reluctant to open them up too frequently. Will he look at the legal requirements in respect of the staff required to operate custody suites, so that those facilities can be brought into use much more frequently, saving all the travelling time to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred?

Paul Goggins: I should be happy, as would my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, to consider that matter, but in the end every police authority must strike a balance between the strategic and the accessible. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the example I gave of the pilot initiative in Northumbria, and I hope that in time he will benefit from such an approach in his area as well.

Edward Garnier: May I take the Minister beyond Loughborough to Wigston, also in Leicestershire, in my constituency? The police station in Bullhead street in Wigston Magna is made of 1960s concrete and is quietly falling to bits. We desperately need a new police station in the borough of Oadby and Wigston. Will the hon. Gentleman please have urgent discussions with the police authority and the chief constable to ensure that a new site is found as quickly as possible, and ensure that, preferably, the new station is made of some sort of concrete that lasts more than 30 or 40 years?

Paul Goggins: The hon. and learned Gentleman calls for more investment and more spending. It will be interesting to see how his Front Bench team intend to fulfil his request.

Edward Garnier: Answer the question.

Paul Goggins: Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have 23 police private finance initiative schemes bringing first-rate modern facilities to local communities throughout the country. In addition, we invested £20 million over two years in the premises improvement fund. We recognise the importance of adequate facilities and we are providing them.

Race Relations

Phyllis Starkey: What guidance his Department has issued to parish councils on implementing their duties under the Race Relations Acts.

Fiona Mactaggart: Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, parish councils have a statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. The Commission for Racial Equality is responsible for enforcing the Race Relations Acts and issuing guidance to public authorities.

Phyllis Starkey: May I remind the Minister that in my constituency in Milton Keynes there are a number of urban parish councils, which for the most part do an excellent job? However, it is my experience that many of them are unaware of their duty under the Race Relations Act positively to promote good race relations, and in some cases they appear to be unaware of their duty not to indirectly discriminate. May I urge my hon. Friend to look again at the way in which advice is given to parish councils and to make sure that they are all aware of their duty, like other local authorities, to positively promote good community relations?

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right that parish councils have that responsibility. At the same time as the CRE issued the statutory code of practice in 2002, it issued a guidance booklet to all parish councils. At that time there was a survey of parish councils' awareness of that duty. The replies suggested that a majority of parish councils were aware of their responsibilities, but I will raise the matter that my hon. Friend describes with the chairman of the CRE when I next meet him. I agree that it is important that parish councils throughout the country, in urban or rural areas, are aware of their legal responsibilities in that regard.

Kirkham Prison

Michael Jack: What steps he is taking to utilise fully the intermittent custody facilities at Kirkham prison.

Paul Goggins: The intermittent custody pilot at Kirkham has steadily increased its numbers, and 30 of the 40 places are now filled at weekends. Some of the spare capacity is being used for ordinary prisoners, especially during the week.

Michael Jack: Will the Minister confirm that intermittent custody is a tough and demanding sentence? Will he tell the House how he is dealing with the barriers to progress on midweek intermittent custody and whether his discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions have been successful?

Paul Goggins: I begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, his support for the prison in his constituency and his support for intermittent custody. Some difficulties occurred in working out the benefit entitlement for jobseeker's allowance claimants who might be subject to intermittent custody, but we have resolved those issues. The message that intermittent custody is, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, a tough punishment is going out loud and clear to the probation service and sentencers.

Cheryl Gillan: After starting a small experiment in two prisons earlier this year, the Home Office had to admit after six months that it was having problems with the Department for Work and Pensions over the eligibility for benefits of prisoners committed to custody during the week. Why did it take so long to sort that problem out? Has that problem now been sorted out? How can we have confidence in the Home Office, which is reorganising the whole prison and probation system, when it cannot sort out the problems in a small, two-prison experiment?

Paul Goggins: The initiative is important, but it is a pilot; we are meant to learn from pilot initiatives, which is what we are doing. So far, as part of the intermittent custody pilots at Morton Hall and Kirkham, 128 orders have been made, and only three offenders have failed to turn up for their custody. The pilot is already a huge success.

Northern Ireland

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
	I announced on Friday 12 November my intention to despecify the Ulster Defence Association, incorporating the Ulster Freedom Fighters. I signalled my intention to lay an order before this House to give effect to that decision, and today I have taken the earliest opportunity to do so. The House will also be aware of the statement made yesterday by the Ulster Political Research Group on behalf of the UDA. I welcome that development, which is positive, and will say more about the detail in a few moments.
	First, I want to explain my actions in terms of despecifying the UDA. I have reviewed the status of all specified and other paramilitary organisations, as I am obliged to do under legislation, and concluded that there are sufficient grounds to despecify the UDA-UFF. For some time now, there has been contact between my officials and its political representatives, whom I, too, have recently met. I view that as part of an overall strategy to bring final closure to the problems that have hindered progress in Northern Ireland and to set in place an inclusive future for all, based on an enduring political settlement.
	The UPRG announced a 12-month period of "military inactivity" by the UDA-UFF, known as the Gregg initiative, on 23 February 2003, and it announced an "indefinite extension" of that initiative on 24 February this year. I have taken advice from the Chief Constable and others and, as I am obliged to do under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, I have reviewed the status of all specified and other paramilitary organisations. It is my judgment, made in the round and having regard to the 1998 Act and other relevant issues, that the UDA ceasefire is now holding and is genuine.
	I appreciate that some may question this decision in the light of negative comments in recent Independent Monitoring Commission reports. I have carefully studied both relevant IMC reports and support the strong language directed against a range of paramilitary organisations, but it is clear that UDA activity decreased between the first and second relevant reports, and other material provided to me endorses that view.
	I am persuaded by the advice I have received that it is appropriate to despecify the organisation, but I have taken the decision cautiously and prudently, considering the full consequences of my actions and the effect on others, especially victims. I am only too conscious of the impact on victims of violence and the terrible consequences of both sectarianism and feuding within communities. I reassure victims that this Government have not forgotten their suffering and that we will continue to support and to work with them.
	There is, however, now an opportunity to move forward. The statement made yesterday by the UDA contained a number of important undertakings. First, there is its commitment to work towards the day when, to use its own words, there will no longer be a need for the UDA or the UFF; its reaffirmation that the UDA will desist from all military activity and its declaration that the organisation's strategy will focus on community development, job creation, social inclusion and community politics. Secondly, there is its agreement to enter into a process with the Government that will see the eradication of all paramilitary activity. Thirdly, there is confirmation that it will re-engage with the Decommissioning Commission, and indeed I understand that that has already begun.
	Those undertakings, which are commitments, not aspirations, are positive. The Government agree with the UPRG when it says that the loyalist community's enemies are issues such as poverty, social deprivation, drugs and crime, and we will work energetically with them and others to tackle those problems. The other issue is to end paramilitarism, and we will be discussing equally urgently with them how that is to be achieved.
	The UDA says that it wants lasting peace and that it can prove to the people of Northern Ireland that it can change. I believe that it should be given the opportunity to do so.However, the Government have always made it clear that we would judge paramilitary organisations by their deeds, but also, of course, by their words, so I shall be watching the UDA's actions very carefully over the coming weeks to ensure that it lives up to the commitments that it has made. The UDA remains a proscribed organisation and the police will pursue relentlessly any criminal activity undertaken by its members or those of any other group.
	In coming to a final judgment on this matter, I would wish to acknowledge the work that has been done in terms of political leadership by the UPRG. I also want to recognise the contribution that members of other political parties have made to creating the conditions in which loyalism can take these important steps. I take this opportunity to call on other groups engaged in violent activity to take similar steps.
	I know that the House will agree that the time has long since passed for all paramilitary groups, loyalist and republican, to cease their activities once and for all and to decommission the weapons that have brought so much suffering to the people of Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Belfast in 2002, the Government want to see all paramilitary groups complete the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful means. I believe that yesterday's announcement by the UDA, together with the political dialogue that is currently taking place with other interested parties, constitutes a significant step towards achieving that goal—a goal that unites every Member of the House and every decent person in Northern Ireland.

David Lidington: I thank the Secretary of State both for his statement and for his customary courtesy in giving me early knowledge of its contents.
	Yesterday's words by the Ulster Political Research Group were welcome, but they need to be matched by action that is both swift and consistent with the pledges that were apparently given yesterday. Less than a fortnight ago, the Independent Monitoring Commission reported that, in the six months between March and August this year, the UDA was responsible for shootings, assaults and at least one vicious sectarian attack on Roman Catholics.
	The IMC concluded in its most recent report that the UDA
	"remains heavily involved in many kinds of organised crime, and remains an active organisation capable of more widespread violence, with the will to commit it if judged appropriate."
	All this at a time when UDA leaders were reiterating their commitment to the cessation of military activities, which they first announced 10 years ago. That discrepancy between words and conduct in the past is in itself good reason for caution, and so too was the wicked attack last night on an SDLP councillor in Larne—an attack which the victim's family have blamed specifically on the UDA.
	I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. First, the UDA has now committed itself to the eradication of all paramilitary activity. Does he agree that that must include an end not only to shootings and assaults, but to the organised crime that has enabled the UDA to impose what can only be described as a mafia-style terror on loyalist communities? What assurances has he been given that the drug dealing, racketeering, exiling and intimidation will now stop?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State said that the UDA had agreed to engage with General de Chastelain's commission. Do the Government believe that it has now accepted that it will have to decommission all the weapons and explosives that it currently holds? Will he also take the opportunity to deny the claims made in some of yesterday's media that the Government have secretly agreed that terrorists should be allowed to keep hold of small arms rather than decommissioning them? I hope that he will agree that such a concession would be an insult to the courage of democrats, whether nationalist or Unionist, who serve on the Policing Board and on local partnerships and have to put up daily with intimidation from the paramilitaries.
	Thirdly, I welcome the indications that the Secretary of State reported that people who previously supported the UDA intend in future to commit themselves to democratic politics and to working to attract the new investment and jobs that are sorely needed in loyalist areas, but I hope that he can also assure the House that the Government will have no truck with any suggestion that a paramilitary or former paramilitary organisation could in some way become the intermediary between the agencies of Government and the people of those areas. People who have been members of the UDA need to put that past behind them. Will he confirm that if the UDA fails to deliver on its promises, he will have no hesitation in putting it back on the specified list?
	The Secretary of State referred to there being no let-up in work by the police to track down and bring to justice people who are responsible for crimes, and I welcome that assurance, but can he also make it clear that there will be no soft-pedalling in the work of the police or the Assets Recovery Agency in pursuing the UDA or other godfathers who have amassed vast fortunes on the back of crime and terror?
	Finally, there will be speculation in Northern Ireland that these announcements are part of a sequence designed to bring about the restoration of the political institutions at Stormont. That is an objective that I certainly share, but I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, in seeking that objective of restoring devolution, there can no longer be any room for fudge or ambiguity, and that nobody, and above all the paramilitary organisations, must be in any doubt about what they now have to do, and that their talk must now be matched with action.

Paul Murphy: I entirely agree with the point about talk being matched by action. As I said in my statement, we have had the words and the deeds must now follow. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is expressing exactly the same view.
	Today's announcement, and the events of the past few days, have not been part of any choreography or sequence. I have held a parallel series of meetings over recent weeks. There is, however, no doubt that if the UDA is genuine, as I believe it is, that is bound to help the political process.
	Obviously the Government condemn any attack on Mr O'Connor, the Larne SDLP councillor, or indeed on his mother, who I believe was involved; but I assure the House that there is no evidence to suggest that the attack was the work of any specific organisation. The police are currently investigating.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to mention drugs and organised crime. The drugs trade in Northern Ireland—if it can be termed thus—is a scourge on society. It is a particular scourge on young Protestant women and young Protestant men who must live in that society. I made it absolutely clear in my discussions with the UPRG that dealing with the problem would have to form a major part of any development involving the UDA and despecification, and I must say that the response was very positive. The UPRG recognises that drugs are a scourge on the community.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be no let-up in the pursuit of criminality in any form, particularly—in this case—among loyalist communities. The Assets Recovery Agency must continue its good work, and the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force will continue to examine the issues.
	As I said, the UPRG held a meeting with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning last week, and there will be further meetings. I myself will have further meetings with the UPRG to stress the importance of decommissioning, which it already recognises.
	As for reports in the newspapers about some sort of deal involving small arms, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that that was a load of nonsense. Such a deal would not be tolerable.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned intermediaries. I accept that when dealing with the problems of loyalist areas we must deal with public representatives—in the House, in the Assembly or in local authorities—but also with those involved in community groups. I should like the widest possible consensus on our wish to do something about the problems of deprivation. As all Members know, deprived areas breed paramilitarism. The best remedies are education, training, jobs and housing.
	I entirely agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's observations. We welcome this development, but we welcome it with caution: deeds must match words.

Lembit �pik: The words are fine, but we need to define what we are talking about.
	Given the IMC's recent rather stern assessment, which the Secretary of State mentioned, what new evidence or information has emerged in favour of his despecifying the UDA? Presumably, specific information has come to light since the report.
	What constitutes the Secretary of State's definition of a ceasefire has proved over the past 10 years that the concept is ill-defined and pretty ambiguous. We should really be talking about paramilitary organisations committing themselves to paragraph 13 of the joint declaration.
	The Secretary of State mentioned small arms. Can he assure us that no understandings have been reached with the UDA that would allow it to believe that the Government would countenance a role for it involving the preservation of elements of its paramilitary infrastructure? Given the UDA's supposed change of stance, why were its members parading on the Rathcoole estate yesterday wearing masks?
	What is the Government's view of the UDA's statement that it will retain the right to defend its own communities? May we have an assuranceputting aside the question of small armsthat the Government do not regard that as acceptable if it means some form of vigilantism? In that context, does the Secretary of State recognise the UDA as a legitimate representative of those communities when it comes to, for instance, community development? If so, in my judgment the UPRG is a very willing and sensible organisation that is committed to reforming that organisation. What support will the Government be giving the UPRG leadership to enable it to transit from a paramilitary infrastructure to an organisation with a primary focus on democratic and peaceful means of campaigning for the communities that it is rightly interested in defending and promoting?

Paul Murphy: With regard to the IMC, there has been a change in the period between the two reports, as I mentioned in my statement. To give the details to the hon. Gentleman, the report shows that there has been a marked reduction in the level of violence from the group, that the leadership has reaffirmed its intention to hold to the terms of the ceasefire and that there is no desire within the group for a resumption of internecine feuding. In addition to that, I have other sources of information that indicate to me that there is a seriousness about the move that we have seen in the past few days.
	Above all else, our view is that we are now looking to the future. The IMC will report at six-monthly intervals so we shall see what happens between now and the next time that that body reports. The point has been made so often this afternoon in the Chamber about deeds and words, and they are extremely relevant. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware that when we look back over the past number of years and see the number of deaths from paramilitary terrorist activity compared with, say, 20 years ago, there is no comparison. There have been enormous developments in that area. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to point, as other hon. Members will undoubtedly do, to the continuance of criminality and other activities such as so-called punishment beatings. All those things have to be taken into account.
	If we can persuade these organisations to go down the right roadto go down a political, non-violent roadall the better. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the UPRG and the work that it has done, remembering that the UDP, which was a party representing the UDA, played a part in the negotiations in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement. Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of opportunity there for people to go down that road as opposed to the one that we have seen. On the hon. Gentleman's point about vigilantism, he will be aware that the organisation remains proscribed as opposed to specified.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I hope that this means that there is a good step forward towards resurrection of the true political process in Northern Ireland. How soon does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the restoration of the operation of the elected Assembly in Northern Ireland and the resumption of devolved government there as being a true sign that political progress has been made on top of all the other work that he has done?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right in pointing to this as a measure by which we can look at some progress that has been made. As for the general political situation, talks are still continuing between the political parties and the Governments. As I have said on a number of occasionsmy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, toothese talks cannot go on forever. We would hope to see a resolution as soon as possible, certainly in the next number of weeks. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the restoration of the Assembly as being the key to this, so that people in Northern Ireland can be governed by the people who represent them and who live there, and the sooner that happens the better.

David Trimble: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome these developments. I am sure that he will agree with me that it will be much easier to deal with the problems of loyalist areas and with organised crime if paramilitary organisations transform themselves in the way that has been indicated. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement made by the UDA that it needs to be assured that the current political efforts are for real. It would be ironic if those efforts were to stumble just as we are seeing some progress in this area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger that there may be other paramilitary groups and other parties that will want to obstruct this process? It would be particularly helpful if the authorities were to keep a careful eye on interface areas to ensure that that does not happen.

Paul Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the interface areas. These are the most difficult areas in Northern Ireland in terms of sectarianism. Clearly, we shall be looking carefully at that. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for this move. I know that he and other members of his party, who represent with others some of the areas that we are dealing with, would want to see the development occur, and I thank him for that.
	As to whether political efforts are for real, we all face the same situation and we all have to do our best to try to ensure that we make progress. There is a particular onus, of course, on the bigger Unionist and nationalist parties at the moment, but, as I said, we all have a role to play. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point the matter out to the House. At the end of the day, what will restore confidence and stability in Northern Ireland is the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, as I just said.

Helen Jackson: My right hon. Friend's statement is to be welcomed wholeheartedly and I pay tribute to the perseverance with which he and his team have entered into political contact and dialogue over the past months. Is it not the case that any political grouping in Northern Ireland that declares itself to be in a ceasefire should be starting to work constructively with the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that they can work together with their communities to deliver a final end to paramilitary violence in those constituencies? What assurances and commitments has my right hon. Friend received from the UPRG or, indeed, the UDA to enter into constructive dialogue with the police service on these matters?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. On the drugs issue, for example, it is very important for the UPRG and others to work closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to deal with those particular matters, which I have already described as a scourge. It is then for the organisation and the Chief Constable to decide whether a meeting would be fruitful. I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, that relationships with the police are indeed very important.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will know that all the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are engaged in types of activity similar to those for which the UDA is responsible. Will he accept that for the people of Northern Ireland, in this case as in others, the real test is action, not words, and that it must be tested over a period of time? That applies to republican organisations as well as to loyalist ones. Will the Secretary of State also accept, as I and elected representatives in these areas have an overwhelming electoral mandate, that he and the Government must deal urgently with the serious social and economic issues in loyalist areas that we have highlighted, in a way that has the confidence and support of local people in those communities?
	Finally, the Secretary of State will have the support of all right-thinking people for encouraging those who wish to turn away from violence and crime. However, those same people will look to him and the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the full force of the law is brought to bear against those who refuse to turn away from violence, criminality, racketeering and so forth.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He represents an area where there have been many difficulties on the interface over the last months. Like others in the House, he will be aware of the particular problems that face Protestant working-class areas in Northern Ireland. Nationalist areas face them, too, of course, but we are dealing particularly with loyalism today. The hon. Gentleman is right that these organisations should be given a chance. He is also right to point out that paramilitary groups of all sides are still proscribed and that there should be no let-up in pursuing criminality. The economic and social problems that have bedevilled these areas must be dealt with. If we can do that, we will go a long way towards ensuring that there is no return to violence, which the hon. Gentleman and I both condemn.

Tony Clarke: The UDA and the UFF are late in coming to the peace table. We all welcome this small step forward, but as long as paramilitary activity continuesracketeering, drug running, the rise of race-hate crime on certain estatesour reservations and concerns will continue. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the PSNI reports back to him regularly on whether those crimes on estates are decreasing? That will be the real measure of success. As politicians, we can welcome this move forward, but people living on estates who continue to have those crimes committed against them will be the real judge of whether the UFF and UDA are genuine and reasonable in their intent.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to point out that people will inevitably have reservations about the despecification of the UDA. I repeat that the matter was not taken lightly, and nor was the decision. He is also right to point out something that has not yet been mentioned, which is the appalling increase in race hate crime that has occurred in Northern Ireland in the last number of years, which must be addressed.
	People in Northern Ireland will be aware of it if things do not change as they should. I was convinced that there was genuineness about the people whom I met who want to try to change things. There is a question, of course, about whether the whole organisation is able to follow on from the aspirations of those people and of those who lead the UDA. Here is its chance, however. It is the chance to show the world that things are going to change. No one is going to say that the world will change dramatically by a week next Tuesday on the estates and elsewhere in Northern Irelandit does not work like thatbut if we see an absolute and consistent trend towards improvement, that will be what we all want.
	I shall, of course, be in touch with the police and the other security agencies to assess whether there has actually been progress. The people I met highlighted drugs, so-called punishment beatings and other issues of criminality that they admitted they had to address in order to get the confidence of people in Northern Ireland.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us agree that he must move extremely cautiously, bearing in mind the history of the UDA and the UFF? Does he also agree that the definition of terrorism should be broad? That applies not only to loyalists, but to republican paramilitaries. There may be an end to traditional terrorist violence, but there has been no end to punishment beatings, to racketeering or to drug dealing. If that continues, through any paramilitary group, will he revise his initial decision?

Paul Murphy: That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the history of the organisation and the appalling crimes that it committed against people in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Catholic community, although, obviously, what he said applies right across the board and to all paramilitary groups. He is right to emphasise what so many hon. Members have emphasised during the past half hour, which is that while we have indeed seen a welcome end to what could be termed political terrorism, the move over the last number of years to criminality, racketeering and all the rest of it is something that we have to address. If, as we hope it will, this organisation does turn its attention away from all that and genuinely towards community activity to try to help the people it lives with, we will all be pleased. We shall watch the moves very carefully.
	As I tried to emphasise in my statement, because of the history of these groups, it is right to recognise the importance of their victims. It is important that all hon. Members are aware that the Government and other agencies and groups in Northern Ireland do their best to try to help the victims of appalling crimes. They are not forgotten, but we believe that if we can change the course of the UDA, there will be fewer victims in future.

Adrian Bailey: May I welcome the comments of the Minister and the moves by the UPRG? A positive move by that group must be met with a positive response from the Government, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of apprehension given the long record of criminality among the paramilitaries. Will he assure us that the level of criminal activities and their association with the UDA and other paramilitaries will be measured? Will he assure us that, if necessary and appropriate, the issue will be reconsidered? Will he assure us, too, that criminality will be defined in terms of race hate, and not just those crimes traditionally associated with paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already done a great deal of work with regard to race hate crime in Northern Ireland, including changing penalties to make them harsher. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), like hon. Members from across the spectrum of the House, is right to say that if this does not work, we will obviously have to consider going back to where we were before last Friday. Our hope is that that will not have to happen. He will recall that one of the important ingredients of the Good Friday agreement was the presence of loyalism at the talks. Of course, that meant David Ervine's party, the Progressive Unionist party, but it also meant the party that represented the UDAthe UDP with Gary McMichael and others. They made a valuable contribution to those talks and I want to get back to the situation in which we can deal with people in loyalism from a political point of view and put the paramilitary and criminal side to one side.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) cannot be here, but he would have raised, as I now do, the case of Davy Adams, who helped with some of the earlier loyalist ceasefires. Is the Secretary of State aware that on Thursday, five days ago, threats were made against the lives of both Mr. and Mrs. Adams? Will he make it plain to the UDA that that is unacceptable and must stop now?

Paul Murphy: I have already done that. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I entirely share his views. I just mentioned the work that the UDP did in the talks that led up to the Good Friday agreement, and Davy Adams was an outstanding contributor to those talks. Any attempt to intimidate him is bad in itself, but also does great disservice to political loyalism.

Iain Luke: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend today, and it may be a significant step in the peace process. However, it has been met with wide scepticism in the Province. Indeed, in the papers today a Mr. Alban Maginness, an SDLP Assembly Member for north Belfast, echoed the sentiments voiced in the Chamber today by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). Only when actions are seen, not just words, will the many communities in Northern Ireland believe that this is a positive step. We took evidence last year from the Prison Officers Association, whose members have been specifically targeted by the UDA, and it would need reassurance

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of calling Back Benchers is to enable them to ask one supplementary question.

Iain Luke: The POA seeks assurances that the UDA and UFF will desist from targeting prison officers to get their own way in prisons.

Paul Murphy: Criminality includes the intimidation of prison officers, which we all condemn. My hon. Friend mentioned widespread scepticism, but I have read about the reaction of politicians and journalists in Northern Ireland in the past day or two and I would say that widespread caution was expressed. I did not detect anybody saying that we should not do what is proposed. Perhaps one or two people have said that, but generally speaking the political consensus in Northern Irelandwhile rightly cautious and probably a little scepticalis that we should give the UDA the chance to prove itself. If it does, everybody in Northern Ireland will benefit.

Edward Garnier: My knowledge of the character of the Secretary of State and of the work that he has done since taking that office leaves no room for doubt about his intentions and motives with regard to securing a better future for Northern Ireland. Can he assure me that absolution for past heinous crimes cannot simply be bought by a few words and the expression of an intention not to commit crimes in the future? There is a danger that members of the publicespecially on this side of the Irish sea, but even in Northern Irelandcould gain the impression that too often absolution for terrible crimes is bought at a cheap price without any benefit accruing.

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. We have all expressed the same theme this afternoon. Words are very important in Northern Ireland, but they are not the only criteria that we have on which to judge developments. We have to judge developments on deedsan end to paramilitary activity, to criminality and to drug dealing. We need to see a complete turnaround so that people in those organisationsand there are thousands of themturn their energies to addressing those very issues that have provided the basis for paramilitarism in the past. They need to concentrate on education, training, schools, jobs, housing and health. We have to tackle all those issues, particularly in deprived Protestant working class communities in Northern Ireland. If we do that, there will be no need for paramilitary activity; indeed, there is never any need for thatthe hon. and learned Gentleman knows what I meanbut we can take away any excuse for it. My meetings over the past couple of weeks have led me to believe that people are sincere in what they want to do. Time will tell.

Point of Order

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 12 March 2003, in the Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, I raised a concern with the Minister for School Standardsthat the new procedures for co-ordinating admissions to secondary schools may, through the ranking of the schools to which parents are applying, allow schools to discriminate against those who did not rank a school as a first preference.
	I was given a clear assurance by the Minister, who said:
	As far as the schools are concerned, preferences will be equal. The ranking will come into play only if pupils are offered more than one place. If that happens, they will be given a place at the higher ranking school.
	He went on to say that
	because the preferences are equal, they will be sent to the school as if they are the same and . . . there will be no ranking in the notification sent to the school.[Official Report, Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 12 March 2004; c. 1415.]
	From press reports yesterday, it appears that grammar schools in particular now have concerns that some of the non-selective schools in their areas are discriminating against applicants who do not put non-selective schools as first choices. The Minister for School Standards is quoted as having replied to one such school that
	no government action is planned to prevent the school taking such measures.
	May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? What is the appropriate course of action when a Minister has given a very clear, unquestionable assurance during the passage of a statutory instrument that appears to be at variance with the code of practice subsequently issued by the Department, on which schools and parents rely?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned. Persistence is required from Back Benchers such as himself. He should put down parliamentary questions to the Minister and, perhaps, apply to me for an Adjournment debatenot that I agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I am neutral in these matters.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

Lords amendment considered.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 2C. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.
	After Clause 6
	Lords amendment: No 2C

Ivor Caplin: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	It is ironic that the only remaining issue standing in the way of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the new pensions and compensation arrangements. By my reckoning, this is the seventh time during the passage of the Bill that there has been a debate in either House on the issue of post-retirement benefits of widows and widowers. This House has twice voted resoundingly against adding a provision of the sort proposed to the Billon Report, on 6 May, by 252 to 132 votes, and on 20 October, the last time that this House discussed the issue, by 270 votes to 181.

Peter Bottomley: No one would dispute the figures, but is the Minister saying that because the Government Whips can get their people to vote as the Government want, that carries the argument on merit?

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I respond to that during the course of my opening remarks. To put the issue into perspective, I was about to say that the House of Lords had twice voted in favour of a provision, once by a single vote, and most recently on 2 November. Members will recall that
	a charge on public funds
	estimated by the Government Actuary at about 50 million for the Ministry of Defence alone and at between 300 million and 500 million across all public service schemeswas the clear reason for the House's refusal of the Lords' previous position. That remains the Government position and indeed, I hope and expect, the view of the House.
	We do not think that the figures would be reduced in the major way indicated in the context of attempts by the Opposition, in this place and then in the Lords, to limit the impact of the amendment by inserting age thresholds for payment of 70 and then 75. Clearly, it was thought that, in each case, such a constraint would make the amendment a lot less expensive and, therefore, more palatable to the Government. I want to disabuse the House on that point.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Incidentally, I was sorry to hear the recent announcement that he will be retiring from the House at the end of this Parliament.
	Does the Minister really want to pursue the post-retirement pensions analogy for the Ministry of Defence and other elements of the public service? Surely, the point is that members of the armed forces tend to retire when they are much younger, so the problem bears on them disproportionately. There is no reason why there should be a read-across. Age limits could deal with the problem in a way that would not read across to other parts of the public service.

Ivor Caplin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall deal with his remarks in the context of my contribution, as we have only a short time for this debate.
	Most widows' and widowers' pensions come into payment only when the recipients are in their 70s, so little is likely to be saved by introducing what would, in any case, be an entirely arbitrary age point. The other point about the proposed amendment is that it is just not possible to ring-fence the armed forces on that issue, which brings me to the read-across point made by the hon. Gentleman. We have given that question careful consideration and I have revisited it in the light of the clear concerns expressed both in this place and in the Lords. Any concession to the widows and widowers of service personnel would inevitably read across to the other public service schemes, where individuals frequently leave service, for all kinds of reasons, before normal retirement age.
	Against that background, it is disappointing to say the least that their lordships have not heeded the clearly expressed will of this House, so I invite the House today to send a strong signal to the Lords on the matter. The stakes could not be higher. I must make it clear that the Bill will not be able to proceed if the Lords insist on an amendment on post-retirement widows' and widowers' benefits. The Government have no provision within their programme for the 300 million to 500 million that might be involved, and could not justify making such provision.
	This is but one of a number of equally deserving pension legacy issues, which affect not only the public services, but many people who were employed in the private sector. To address them all would cost many billions of pounds. Successive Governments of all persuasions have concluded that a remedy would be unaffordable.
	If their lordships were to insist on their amendment, or something like it, on Wednesday, there would be no realistic chance of the Bill coming on to the statute book. In that case, the significant improvements to the pension scheme, which have long been sought by serving personnel and are strongly supported by the chiefs of staff, and also by many veterans organisations, including the Forces Pension Society and the Royal British Legion, would be lost; as would the benefits under the new compensation scheme, of lump sum payments and a new deal for the more seriously disabled. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would welcome that outcome, even though I know that some of his Opposition colleagues have shown no such reservations, as we saw the last time we debated the matter.
	Given the number of times that we have debated the issue, I shall not take the House through all the arguments again. The Government's strong opposition to the proposal is clearly on the record: the cost implications of the amendment are too far-reaching to allow any Government to make such a change. Furthermore, despite what the hon. Gentleman said during our last debate, I doubt, in the very unlikely event he were standing in my place, that he would take a different view. Those who continue to support the amendment must face up to the very real and substantial cost implications of the change.
	No one has grounds for saying that the Government have been insensitive to the needs of our older veterans or widows. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Bach announced in the Lords on 8 September a tightly-defined concession for the pre-1973 war widows, reflecting the very special circumstances of that group of generally elderly and relatively poorly off war pensioners. That concession was targeted on that deserving group, which the War Widows Association has regularly highlighted for special treatment, and will cost the Government more than 20 million. However, that is as far as we can afford to go and further than any previous Government have gone.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that most of his argument turns on cost? Would he not care to consider the fact that, for example, the Public Accounts Committee has made some pretty trenchant remarks about some failures in relation to Ministry of Defence costings and accountancy? Therefore, bearing in mind that the sum of 300 million to 500 million may seem a lot by comparison with the issues and principles at stake, it pales into insignificance when compared to the very considerable amount of inefficiency that has been occasionally highlighted by the PAC, although I should like to add one thing

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficient for one bite of the cherry.

Ivor Caplin: I thought that we were just getting to the interesting bit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I say to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that the MOD has a defined budget, and we rightly have to live within it. The measure would involve extra expenditure, and there is no provision for it in our current thinking. Of course, we take into account what the Public Accounts Committee has said, and we had a very lively debate on procurement just 10 days ago in this House, when all those issues were properly and fully examined.
	I do not believe that the Lords amendment can achieve what its proposer is seeking. There were no pensions before 1975 for those with less than 22 years' service as another rank and 16 years' service as an officer. In other pension schemes, arrangements were even less generous, as no pensions were payable with less than 40 years' service. The measure would therefore benefit very few of those who may have decided to delay marriage out of deference to the constraints of service. We would expect the main beneficiaries to be those remarrying later in life after either the death of the spouse or divorce. There can be no compelling case for the special treatment of those in that group who are in the same position as many others across the public services.
	Overall, I strongly believe that the Government have put together a very good package of pensions and compensation benefits for our armed forces. The improvements to the pension scheme have been made in response to concerns about the current arrangements that have been voiced over the years by serving personnel, including many former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and the ex-service community.
	I hope that the Lords will not insist on their position, but let us just consider what is at risk if they do: a pension scheme based on final salary, against the general trend seen outside; a very significant improvement to widows' and dependants' benefits; the extension of benefits to unmarried partners, including same-sex relationships; the introduction of common terms for officers and other ranks; and a new deal for the more seriously disabled, significantly improving their benefits.
	As I have said before in the House, I am in no doubt that the new pension and compensation schemes are a good deal for service personnel and that it would be quite wrong to tear up the new schemes now and start again, thus asking the armed forces to wait yet longer for proper, modern employment terms. I am therefore again asking the House to send a clear signal to the House of Lords about the wishes of the elected House on this matter. I hope that, in the light of the debate and in the knowledge that we could not allow the Bill to proceed if it contained the Lords amendment, the Lords will agree that it is now time to accept the will of this, the elected House, and allow the Bill to proceed to Royal Assent later this week. I therefore ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 2C.

Gerald Howarth: First, may I point out that we have only a relatively short time to debate the amendment? That has nothing to do with the Opposition; the Government have set an arbitrary limit of an hour for the debate. I hope that that will not result in those who wish to participate being unable to do so.
	After months of detailed deliberations on the Bill in the House, in Committee and in the other place, the Government now seem likely to get their Bill pretty much in the form that they originally intended. It is disappointing that they have proved unwilling to consider any form of compromise on a number of key issues, including the burden of proof, on which the Select Committee on Defence offered a very sensible compromise solution, the reduced early departure payments scheme and the refusal to allow our servicemen and women to earn a full career pension.
	Sadly, only on the issue of independent oversight did the Government accede to Opposition demands by giving an oversight role to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Of course, we welcome that. As the Minister said, the only outstanding issue between the two Houses is the provision for the payment of a widow's pension to the oldest of those widows of post-retirement marriages whose spouses' service took place before 1978.
	I was very interested to hear the Minister produce the figures that he used, because he produced them completely out of the airthere was no back-up or substance to them whatever. He does a disservice to the House in so doing. The Government Actuary's Department and the Ministry of Defence refuse to release the assumptions on which those costings are based, so it is very difficult to make accurate projections of the financial cost of the amendment. However, as the Minister knows, the Forces Pension Society has done some work on the issue, and it estimates that the provision would cost in the order of 7 million. I will come in a moment to the read-across to other Departments. For the Minister to suggest, as we sit here in the week of the Armistice commemorations, that these people are somehow not particularly deserving and that there ought to be a read-across to every other Department will, frankly, not wash.

Ivor Caplin: rose

Gerald Howarth: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to repent.

Ivor Caplin: I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with such an outrageous and disgraceful comment. I have never said that the widows and widowers were not a deserving group. I was merely pointing out the specific issue in relation to widows, Government policy and wider pension policy.

Gerald Howarth: Well, I am afraid that that does not stack up, and I will explain to the Minister in words of one syllable in a moment why it does not.
	As I say, 7 million is hardly a king's ransom. Furthermore, the Minister knows that those who have been seeking to put right this anomaly have made genuine efforts to give the Government the opportunity to put it right. They have made plenty of efforts both here and, in particular, in another place, where Lord Freyberg introduced the amendment and secured the support of their lordships in the vote. They reduced the entitlement and narrowed it down to those over the age of 75 in an endeavour to meet the Government part way. Indeed, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out to me a moment ago, when we calculate these figures, we also have to take into account the fact that there will be some saving in social security. Although these pensions will be payable out of the public purse, many of those who would be the beneficiaries if the amendment were accepted are currently in receipt of social security payments. Given that they would no longer apply, there would be a counter-balancing saving to the public purse.

Douglas Hogg: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for making a slightly ungracious intervention. He must bear it in mind that he is advocating something that has been rejected by all Governments for all time. Will he tell us why the argument on read-across does not apply? If we retrospectively change the law on pensions, why will we not be asked to reopen the matter in many other cases for younger age groups?

Gerald Howarth: I shall come on to read-across in a moment. It is common ground among us that the matter is one of several legacy issues that Governments of both political complexions have found it difficult to address. We believe that it is now time to address the matterwe suggested others for consideration, but we have narrowed them down to one. I hope that the fact that the proposal has found favour in the other place will carry some weight with my right hon. and learnedand, if I may also say so, nobleFriend. Let me remind him that Lord Freyberg's amendment, which would limit the entitlement to those over 75, was carried by 149 votes to 126. Among those who supported the measure was the most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce. Many of us would argue that he was one of the most distinguished people who have had the honour to serve in that post, and he has made no secret of his worries about several issues, of which this is one.

Ivor Caplin: rose

Gerald Howarth: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment.
	If the Government give life peerages to all and sundry, but cannot find 150 people to turn up and support them on this measure, they clearly either have given peerages to the wrong peopleperhaps they did not give the Labour party enough moneyor could not persuade them of the argument. Frankly, I think that the latter is the case.

Ivor Caplin: That was a cheap shotwe are hearing plenty of those at the moment. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the number of Labour peers who voted in that Division and the number of Conservative peers. I am sure that he has the figures to hand, but if not, I can certainly tell him.

Gerald Howarth: I have not done a detailed analysis on those who voted, although I note that at least one Labour peer voted with Lord Freyberg, who is, of course, a Cross Bencher. Cross Benchers, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported the amendment, and I think that most of those who voted against it were members of the Labour party. However, the Government have created many Labour peers, so if they do not turn up to vote, either they are not earning their corn, or they do not believe in the Government's policy.
	I doubt that I am alone in finding it pretty grubby that the day after Remembrance Sunday, the Government's message to widows who married after their spouses had left the service of the Crown is, We realise that your spouse risked his life for this country, but we are sorry that, as his widow, you are not entitled to anything from his service. Many such widows aged over 75 will have been married to men who served in the second world war, so hon. Members on both sides of the House and the British people will share our dismay at the Government's refusal to make such a small provision for some of the oldest and most vulnerable of our forces' widows.
	I cited two cases the last time that we discussed the Bill, and I shall cite another today. A lady from Oxfordshire said:
	We married in 1977 after my husband retired, but he unfortunately died in 1991. Consequently I get no pension. My husband served for 25 years in the RAF and was flying as a pilot throughout the last war. He was awarded the AFC and Bar and was mentioned in dispatches. He like many, many more was prepared to give his life if necessary.
	That is the tenor of many letters that have been sent to organisations that champion the cause.
	The Minister sometimes adopts a hectoring manner and it has been suggested to me that he has said that if he fails to get his way on the matter, he will pull the Bill. Indeed, he made it abundantly clear to the House that that remained his position.

Julian Brazier: Surely there is a second argument besides the strong one that my hon. Friend puts. The armed forces are in a unique position, with the possible exception of the diplomatic corps, in which people are moved about quickly and sent abroad for long periods. As a result, many personnel have less opportunity for marriage. Above all, unlike all other forms of public service, they typically retire in their 40s, so half their life's pension, which they acquired in the armed forces, cannot be read-across to a later marriage. The problem does not usually arise for someone who retires at a later age in any other part of public service.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to him for that. Hon. Members will know that it was almost frowned on to get married too early. The practice was that people married after they retired rather than when they moved around the world in service.
	The Minister made it crystal clear again that if the House votes against the amendment and if it is carried in the other place, he will pull the Bill. That is as churlish as it is unlikely.

Ivor Caplin: Let me clarify something. I said that if the Lords insisted on the amendment, the Bill would be very different. Conservative Members criticised the Government in Committee because the Bill was enabling legislation, to be followed by secondary legislation. It would clearly be wrong for this matter, which does not need legislation, to be in the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister blows a hole in the Bill by making it crystal clear that it is essentially enabling legislation, as I made clear at the outset. There is some consistency in his argument that to include the measure would go against the Bill's general principle. In that case, we would be delighted for him to say that the Government will introduce proposals in a statutory instrument to achieve the same effect if the amendment is not insisted on in another place.

Ivor Caplin: I intend to respond to the debate in full and will give my thoughts about the future then.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister will need to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to respond. We had his definitive statement. I find it astonishing that he is suggesting that something is up his sleeve that he wishes to impart to the House at the end of the debate. If he has good news for us, perhaps he will kindly tell us now so that I can properly respond.
	Clearly, the Minister has nothing to say. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to consider whether there is any point in him winding up if the Government have nothing additional to offer. It will be unfortunate if he imparts new information that he was unwilling to give at the start of the debate, without enabling us to comment on it.
	As I said, it is as churlish as it is unlikely that the Minister will pull the Bill. He would look pretty silly explaining how a small group of widows, their cause championed in this House and another place, had so overwhelmed the Ministry of Defence that it was forced to deprive tomorrow's armed forces of the myriad benefits he has claimed the Bill will provide.
	The Government have cited a policy of no retrospection as grounds for resisting the amendment. In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Defence, Tom King, agreed a 40 a week tax-free payment to pre-1973 widows without any implication for retrospection in other areas. That provision was said to have been made for a uniquely deserving category. Surely those widows of post-retirement marriages over the age of 75 today, like the lady from Oxfordshire whose case I quoted, should qualify as another uniquely deserving category. We were talking about read-across earlier, but it was not an issue when my noble Friend Lord King made that special gesture. The Ministry of Defence was clearly not telling him that if he made that concession, there would be a read-across to every other Government Department. It is unacceptable and outrageous that the Ministry and its officials should insist that if we look after a unique category of people, similar provisions should be made for every other Department so that an expenditure of 7 million on that small group would become 500 million across Government.

Douglas Hogg: Would my hon. Friend equip me with an argument that I can put to the widows of, for example, firemen, prison officers, policemen or teachers, and explain why they should not have the same benefit?

Gerald Howarth: Given the nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency, which includes many Royal Air Force airfields and former RAF airfields, he will know that there is something unique about the people who fought in the second world war and whose widows would be the beneficiaries of the measure. I hope that I do not need to spell out the argument for him, because I am sure that it is apparent to him.
	On the question of retrospection, there is plenty of precedent to show that the MOD has not needed to argue against retrospection in the past. More recently, the Civil Partnership Bill provides retrospective benefits dating back to 1988. If retrospective benefits are okay for homosexual couples, why is that not the case for the widows of men who fought for our freedom? I confess that I am surprised that the Minister has chosen to snub the widows as his parting shot. As he activates his ejector seat and parachutes back into the world of personal financemy assumption may be unreasonablewhich was comprehensively mucked up by the Government, he will surely want to be remembered with affection by that small but valiant group. The sum of 7 million, as well as being wholly justified, is an entirely affordable option. If the Government continue to be pigheaded and stubborn, next year's incoming Conservative Government will put the matter right and make provision for that deserving group.
	I shall conclude by paying tribute to Lord Freyberg, who kindly mentioned me last week in the debate in the other place. We ought to leave the last word to him, because he concluded that debate and won the hearts of Members of the upper House. I hope that by repeating his remarks I can win the hearts of Members of the House of Commons:
	I should like to remind the House that those affected by this issue are mostly widows of Second World War servicemen who fought for a pensionable length of timefor around two decadesand endured great hardship without being able to provide for their wives in the event of their death, through no fault of their own and in contrast to contemporary colleagues in less arduous positions. I hope the House will grasp this late opportunity to help such a vulnerable group.[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 181.]
	Amen to thatI hope that this House, too, will grasp it.

Colin Breed: I shall make only a few comments, because I want to ensure that the Minister has time to enlighten us about how he will bring our proceedings to an end. We have discussed the Bill seven times, and I hope that he agrees that when primary legislation is introduced it is not just a time to look forward and lay out plans for the years and decades to come, but to address perceived injustices in systems that have been in place for some time. There is widespread acceptance of the fact that certain injustices ought to be put right by the Bill. The group that we are discussing falls into that category.
	I shall say a little about why the Government say they cannot accept the Lords amendment. The first reason is retrospection. The only way in which perceived injustices from the past can be put right is through retrospective legislation. There are examples of the Government doing that. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave one recent example and there are others. It would be churlish of the Government to rely on the argument that they cannot act retrospectively.
	A more important consideration is cost. Bearing in mind all the resources at the Government's disposal, we should by this stage have some clear actuarial figures to show what the measure would cost. The Minister says the cost could be substantially more than 7 million, but we do not know how much more, how the cost was calculated or whether it includes social security benefits that will not become payable. Given the length of time that we have been considering the Bill, there should be something rather more solid for us to debate, rather than our bandying figures across the Chamber.

Douglas Hogg: The cost depends on the extent of the read-across. It is difficult to quantify the cost until we know the extent of the read-over to other public service pension schemes.

Colin Breed: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes my point exactly. That would have enabled us to define the extent of the read-across, and would have served the House in two respects. It would have given us a more solid estimate of the cost and provided boundaries to the read-across. As I understand itI do not possess anything like the legal experience of the right hon. and learned Gentlemanthere would have to be some comparability among the various schemes to which read-across applied. As has been pointed out, aspects of the armed forces pension scheme are fundamentally different from other public service pension schemes.
	It would have helped usperhaps that is why we do not have the figuresto know, rather than to guess, the extent of the read-across and the costs. It is almost impossible for us to debate these matters without more solid figures. It is a great shame that, after all this time, we do not have a clearer idea of the Government's views and the basis for their contentions.
	I accept, however, that the Bill is valuable in other respects and I would not want to see it fall. Many aspects of it have received support across the House. The Government have missed the opportunity to address a widely perceived injustice, and it is a pity that that is being used as a hostage to fortune in the proceedings on the Bill. If the Minister indicates that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter and introduce a statutory instrument to address it, that will be welcome. Nevertheless, I am still minded to press this relatively small issue.

Douglas Hogg: I rise with some disquiet, as I dislike disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on a matter of considerable sensitivity. I recognise that the group of people under discussion deserve well of the country. At the same time, one must ask some questions of principle. I was a member of a Government who, for many years, declined to reopen the question. We were satisfied that the reasons for not doing so were sound; they are two in number.
	One should be very cautious about reopening contractual arrangements retrospectively. Contractual arrangements are based on a contractcertain payments to obtain certain benefitsand one should be slow to give benefits for which contributions have not been paid. Once one starts to do that, one abandons the basic rule that one should not make retrospective changes and opens oneself to a range of demands with huge public spending implications.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that one must exercise a great deal of caution, but I put it to him that such issues have been reopened on a number of occasions. He will remember that Tony Barber, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, made an ex gratia payment to war widows, and I have cited the individual, special case that occurred when Lord King of Bridgwater was Secretary of State for Defencemy right hon. and learned Friend was a Minister at that time and, indeed, may have been a Cabinet Minister. Those at the top end of the age bracketin that case, over-75shave a long history of special consideration, which we are trying to introduce here.

Douglas Hogg: The fact that my hon. Friend has identified only two casesI am not saying that other cases do not existafter, I suspect, considerable research, indicates the caution with which Governments have approached that proposition over the years. If one reopens contractual arrangements for over-75s, one immediately faces the question of why an arbitrary age limit should be imposedwhy not 70 or 65? Once one breaches the principle of not making retrospective changes, one opens oneself to considerable demands with huge public spending implications.

William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to comparisons with people in other activities. Does he apply that principle to those in the fire service or other dangerous activities, irrespective of whether the widowing took place as a result of that activity's danger or merely because that occupation is dangerous in general terms? I am sure that he recognises that the war widows situation arises explicitly when a war widow, such as my mother, is widowed as a result of her husband being killed in action.

Douglas Hogg: However, that is not true of the amendment, although it is, of course, true in some cases. The amendment does not deal with such a tragic situation; it deals with a wholly different situation in which a person in the armed forces continues to serve for many years and does not die in service, which is different from my hon. Friend's example.
	One must face this question: if one makes such a change in respect of a deserving group of people, what does one say to widows in comparable circumstancesfor example, the widows of policemen or firemen who die in service? Indeed, leaving aside dangerous occupations, what does one say to the widows of those in public service? By making such a change, one accepts changes to one kind of pension provision, and I find it difficult to resist the argument that pensioners or prospective pensioners married to other public servants should be entitled to the same benefits. I ask myself whether one can ring fence the surviving spouses of servicemen and have great difficultly in defining that principle.

Gerald Howarth: We have done it, and I pointed out the case in which it was done.

Douglas Hogg: The case has been made, but it is not a justification in principle. My hon. Friend must give us a principled argument as to how one can properly make a distinction between the surviving spouses of servicemen and the surviving spouses of other individuals in thousands of other public sector occupations. it is very difficult to make that distinction as a matter of principle. As it happens, I would like to be able to benefit that group of surviving spouses but we have to understand the consequences of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has not dealt satisfactorily either with the point about retrospection or with the point about read-across. Unless he can do so, I shall not support him.

Ivor Caplin: Perhaps I could begin where the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) ended. There seems to be some confusion in the House in relation to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about the single change that Tom King made when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I want to try to clarify that. There was a change to the war pension scheme, which is not an occupational scheme. It does not raise the same issues that we have debated this afternoon. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the benefit is not in relation to the terms of service, which were set separately for service personnel at the time of their service, and there is no direct pay adjustment.
	Furthermore, the war widows already had an entitlement to benefit in 1989 and all that happened was that the value of the benefit was increased for pre-1973 widows. That was an honourable thing for the Secretary of State at the time to do. It was also the right thing to do. The post-retirement marriages measure that we are debating today and that has been debated in the House of Lords would introduce a completely new entitlement. That is why I ask the House to disagree with their lordships. It is a completely different area. It is not right to make a comparison with the change that Tom King made at that time.
	I wanted to start on a point of consensus in winding up this short debate. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot about our inclusion of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) in relation to the Bill in general. I want to say how much I have enjoyed the trio debates that we have had for the best part of eight months. When this Bill got into Committee in February, I did not expect us to be debating it in the last week of the Session, but there we are.
	I want to try to make it absolutely clear where I stand in relation to post-retirement widows. The House will recall from our previous debate that I had a meeting with Lord Freyberg and the Forces Pension Society. I hope that I can build on the comments that I made then with some further comments. I make it clear that I remain open-minded on the possibility of a measure that may make further improvements for particularly vulnerable groups of armed forces widows, in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for. As I have already indicated to the society, I am prepared to meet it and Lord Freyberg once the Bill has received Royal Assent to consider the issues raised throughout our debates. I hope that the House will accept that commitment from me on behalf of the Government and, in consequence of it, will allow the House to disagree with the Lords and send a clear message back to their lordships on this issue.

Gerald Howarth: I am aware that the Minister had a meeting with Lord Freyberg and others. I find it surprising that the Minister, having said at the outset of the debate that, if the amendment were insisted upon, the Bill would have to be pulled and all these benefits to the armed forces would be lost, chooses at the end of the debate, when there is no real opportunity for us to reply, to say that he is open-minded about it and willing to reconsider.
	If the Minister is saying that he is prepared to consider righting this injustice at some point in the near future, that is fine; but if he is saying that he is prepared to talk, but in fact there is nothing new to say, frankly, I do not see what purpose there is in his talking further. Can he give us some more definite commitment?

Ivor Caplin: I have given a clear commitment both today and in what I have said previously. My words have been carefully chosen and reflect a further conversation that I had with the Forces Pension Society last week. I am saying that I am open-minded on the possibility of a measure that might make further improvements for especially vulnerable groups of armed forces widows, and in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for. It seems to me that that is clear and unambiguous, and it is a matter that we can discuss afterwards.
	The hon. Gentleman knows, as we have already debated it today, that this is an enabling measure. It is right and proper to discuss these issues. He said to me in Committee when the matter was raised on, I think, 22 February, that it was a probing amendment. We did not divide on it then and he did not appear to wish to pursue it further. That is a normal consequence of House business, but in these circumstances I am trying to make it clear to the House and to the other place that there are opportunities for further discussions, and I am not ruling anything out and remain open-minded. He will simply have to accept that that is as far as I can go in making a commitment today.

Gerald Howarth: I am afraid that, from what I have heard so far, I do not feel sufficiently confident that there is a real intention to deal with this issue. I welcome the idea that the Minister is prepared for further negotiations, but I find what he has said so far unpersuasive, and unless he can give a certain commitment I am likely to seek to divide the House on this issue, because he has shown nothing but intransigence thus far, so I cannot place huge reliance on his delivering if he comes to further negotiations.

Ivor Caplin: I did not use the word negotiations, and I reject the charge of intransigence. That was not a sensible point to make, and in fact the concession that we made to the pre-1973 widows, at a cost of more than 20 million, was welcomed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and should perhaps have been welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, too.
	I want to respond briefly to two points, the first of which concerns the Civil Partnerships Bill and retrospectionthe two are not the same, and it is worth my placing on the record why that is the case. The regulations under that Bill will provide equality, as they will allow registered same-sex partners to accrue survivor pensions in public service schemes from 1988. That puts registered same-sex couples in the same position as married couples. This new legal status is akin to marriage and inevitably produces corresponding benefit rights. That is different from the issues relating to any retrospective improvements for pension benefits that have arisen in debates on our Bill both today and previously.
	Secondly, it is simply not true that the Lords amendment would cost 7 million. The Government Actuary has confirmed that limiting the threshold for payments to age 75I made this point in my opening remarksdoes not reduce significantly the one-off cost, which I have stated clearly throughout this debate is in the region of 50 million to the Ministry of Defence, and the read-across of that is the other figures that we have heard: 300 million to 500 million.

Gerald Howarth: Are those costs net of social security payments that will be saved?

Ivor Caplin: It really was not worth my giving way. The Government Actuary works the figures out, and I have given the House a clear understanding of them. It is not 7 million; it is much, much more. Reading across to the public services and rectifying all the legacies, we would be talking about billions of pounds. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would expect any Government to present such a case.
	We have now discussed this matter on seven occasions. I believe that the House should disagree with the Lords, and I urge it to do so by rejecting the amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:-
	The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Liz Blackman, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Vernon Coaker and Mr. Gerald Howarth; Mr. Ivor Caplin to be the Chairman of the Committee; three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Vernon Coaker.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Pensions Bill [Ways and Means]

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of charges by virtue of the Act for the purpose of meeting expenditure of the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Ombudsman for the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.
	The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to appoint an ombudsman for the pension protection fund. This is a new office which is being set up to provide an independent forum for dealing with PPF disputes.

Nigel Waterson: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I have not got to the very exciting bit yet, but will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman cannot contain himself.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister, and I do not want him to get too excited too early in his speech. Will he confirm that it is still the Government's thinking, as emerged in Committee, that at least to begin with the self-same person will be both the pensions ombudsman and the PPF ombudsman?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I am happy to confirm that. Clearly, in the early months of the pension protection fundperhaps the first year or sothere should be little demand on the ombudsman. We therefore think it important that the same individualthe same man in this caseshould undertake both roles. [Interruption.] I can deal with this matter relatively briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether the House can is out of my hands.
	When we debated the clauses on the pension protection fund ombudsman in this House on 20 April, the Bill made provision for the costs of the ombudsman and his office and staff to be provided by grant-in-aid by the Secretary of State. That would require the general taxpayer to foot the bill.
	On reflection, we introduced an amendment in the other place allowing regulations to be made to allow the grant-in-aid to be recouped by a levy on pension schemes. That brings the funding of the PPF ombudsman into line with the approach already in place for organisations such as the pensions ombudsman, the PPF board and the pensions regulator. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) follows such things with great interest.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. Can we just be clear about what he is saying? When he refers to the levying of a charge, what he actually means is a stealth tax on business.

Malcolm Wicks: We think that as this measure is of benefit to people in, to use the jargon, final salary schemes or defined benefit schemes, and not to the general public or even to the general body of all people in personal pensions, it is not unreasonable that that group rather than the general body of taxpayers should pay the cost.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Let me make a little more progress; the hon. Gentleman can polish his question even further if I give him a few more seconds. [Laughter.] Well, I have heard him before, and a little more polish always helps.
	This measure brings the funding of the PPF ombudsman into line with the approach already in place for similar organisations. We do not envisage that the costs involved will be major. For example, the total costs of the existing pensions ombudsman in 200203 were under 1.5 million, which covered all the disputes and complaints referred to him. By contrast, the PPF ombudsman's remit covers just the pension protection fund, so we do not expect substantial costs.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister's mellifluous tones, but none of us would want him to proceed at an excessive pace. He referred a moment ago to regulations. Will those regulations be subject to the negative procedure or to its affirmative counterpart?

Malcolm Wicks: That is an extremely good question, and I thought that I might deal with that point very shortly. I am bound to say that it is always useful to give the one-nation tendency in the Conservative party I think that the hon. Gentleman is still a member of that groupan opportunity. [Interruption.] I can now reply in the affirmative: the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
	While the costs will be payable by all eligible[Interruption.] There is a certain degree of end-of-term amusement on the Opposition Benches, which is slightly premature at this point. Opposition Members have obviously read the jokes that I took out of my speech. While the costs will be payable by all eligible pension schemes, the PPF ombudsman will be independent, because he will be appointed by the Secretary of State and not the PPF board. Although I have been urged by the left wing of the Tory party not to rush my remarks on this important matter, I shall do so on this occasion, and I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Nigel Waterson: The key words in this apparently harmless piece of verbiage are the levying of charges. Of course, the Minister, in his habitual fashion, has tried, with honeyed words, to suggest that that is the right and sensible thing to be doing. However, it is nothing of the sort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, this is yet another stealth tax on business.
	The Minister was good enough to establish one point, which arose out of a proposal made by our side in Committee, which is that we should draw on the experience and wisdom of the existing ombudsman, so thatat least to begin withMr. Laverick will be both the pensions ombudsman and the PPF ombudsman. Sadly for Mr. Laverick, I do not think that that dual role will require two salaries, but I suspect that it will mean extra staff, so we should not allow the Minister to persuade the House that no extra cost is built into this part of the elaborate bureaucracy that the Bill has set up.
	The real issue is the switching of the burden of this new office, and its back-up staff, to business and industry. Only a few days ago, the Department sneaked out a written statement, very quietly and without fanfare, that made it clear that the pension protection fund would, in some respects, be retrospective and might take into account companies such as Turner and Newell, if their pension schemes got into difficulties between now and when the Pensions Bill comes into effect. Of course, one can see the motivation for that. It is becoming apparent, almost day by day, that the Government's financial assistance scheme is woefully inadequate for its purpose of compensating people I should say, of assisting people. The Secretary of State has made a distinction between compensation and assistance. The latter is a handout of only a tiny fraction of the benefits that would have been available to the people involved if they had been lucky enough to qualify under the PPF after April next year.
	The boundaries have been blurredwe will no doubt debate the point at greater length tomorrowbetween the pension protection fund and the financial assistance scheme. However, the point is that the PPF will be financed by a levy on business. Because of the slowness in introducing a risk-based levy, that levy will be a flat rate for a significant period, reflecting no risk and not distinguishing between good schemes and bad schemes, well run schemes and badly run schemes, or schemes with poor investments and schemes with better investments. The result, of course, will be that the good will subsidise the bad, and the measure that we are asked to approve today is an example of that. The Government's default position throughout the Bill has been, wherever possible, to heap more burdens on business, and the motion is another clear example of that.

Malcolm Wicks: Is the hon. Gentleman's position on behalf of the Conservative party that the taxpayer should pay? As I recall, in Committee the Conservative Opposition supported the idea of an ombudsman, for perfectly sensible reasons. That position has to be paid for. How does the hon. Gentleman think it should be paid for?

Nigel Waterson: The Conservatives resist attempts to heap more taxation on people. The reality is that we suggestedin fairness, I must add that the Minister took up the suggestionthat a new person was not needed to carry out the job of the new ombudsman. We hoped that there would be some saving, because the same person would be involved. We are trying to make the point that[Interruption.] If the Minister stops chuntering, he may learn something. Well run companies with decently run pension schemes will already face a flat-rate levy from the start of the pension protection fund. That will be a significant burden on them, and yet another reason for the decline of defined benefit schemes.
	Following the Minister's announcement the other day, we now know that, on top of that, the PPF may well open its doors with a substantial deficit caused by schemes swept up prior to April next year. Incidentally, that announcement was not adverted to at all either in the debate in the House of Lords, or during departmental questions on the same day.
	Leaving that aside, there is already a significant burden on business. That may explain, in part, why the Minister's rather naive hopes that industry would come forward voluntarily with money to boost the financial assistance scheme seems not to have borne any fruit. As I said, the motion will mean yet another burden on companies that support the PPF from April next year, because of the flat-rate levy that they will be paying. There will be no option for the better companies to pay less because they are better organised and run better pension schemes; the motion will simply add to the levy that they will already be paying.
	As I have made clear, the Conservatives regret the fact that the Government continue to regard British business as merely a milch cow from which they can draw ever greater contributions to help pay for this flawed layer of bureaucracy that they are setting up, to try to deal with a pensions crisis that they have done so much to create.

Steve Webb: I am not sure whether that was a yes or a no. It is unclear to me whether Her Majesty's official Opposition are going to vote against the motion[Interruption.] The tension is almost palpable.
	The Ways and Means motion proposes that we work on the assumption that there will be an ombudsman for the pension protection fund. As a constituency Member who regularly finds that going to an ombudsman is the only way to resolve complex and difficult disputes independently, I think it entirely appropriate that there should be such an ombudsman.
	I was rather surprised that the Minister did not tell us how much might be raised by the levy, and that was a rather regrettable omission. He said that the sum would be less than 1.5 million, but there is a big gap between 1.5 million and zero. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will at least give us some flavour of the amount of money that the House is giving the Secretary of State permission to levy. To ask how much might be raised seems a basic question to make of a Ways and Means resolution. The Minister did not tell us; he said, or implied, that it would not be more than 1.5 million, but will he give an idea of the order of magnitude that he is talking about?
	The Liberal Democrats are of the view that there should be such an ombudsman, that that ombudsman has to be paid for, and that those who will benefit from the existence of the ombudsman are those with final salary or other defined benefit occupational schemes that are covered by the PPF. It is rather difficult to see why, if this body has to be paid for, it should be paid for by those who do not even have final salary or defined benefit pensions. In other words, in pensions, increasingly there areto use an old phrasetwo nations: those who have final salary, high-quality pensions and those at the mercy of the stock market. It seems odd to suggest that people whose pensions have no promise attached be asked to pay for a dispute resolution procedure for those who have better pensions, or indeed that the general taxpayer, who may have no pension at all beyond that provided by the state, be asked to pay for such a procedure.
	It is hard to understand what the Conservative response actually meant. I think it was against a levy on PPF scheme members, so I take it that it supported a levy on the general taxpayer. That point will have been noted far and wide, as our debates are followed closely.

Michael Fallon: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman has noticed that if the levy is to be charged on other final salary schemes, it will fall on uson the parliamentary pension fund, as a successful final salary scheme. Has he consulted his colleagues about voting in favour of the motion?

Steve Webb: On the assumption that our scheme is not covered by the pension protection fund, the levy would not fall on us, but I am open to amendment or correction on that point.
	I have a question for the Minister. In his remarks, he referred to the fact that when we first discussed the issue in Aprilwas it really all that time ago?the original assumption was that the cost would be funded by the general taxpayer. Nothing changed, as far as I can see, between April and September, when his noble Friend Baroness Hollis said, on reflection, that it would be funded by a levy, so can the Minister explain why the Government changed their mind on that point? What changed? Or was it yet another of those last-minute changes to the Pensions Bill that we have grown all too fond of seeing?
	The Bill will come back to us tomorrow and we shall debate the substantive issues then, but even on the eve of those final discussions, things are still changing. It is another hallmark of a Bill that has not been properly thought through or prepared that on the eve of its final returnperhaps not even its final returnto the House we are still debating last-minute changes of mind and Government second thoughts. It is worrying that a framework that affects the whole pensions system and which should be in place for a generation is being written on the back of an envelope and cobbled together by the Government as they go along.
	On this specific last-minute change, however, the Government have got things right. If the ombudsman service has to be paid for, as clearly it does, it is appropriate that it be paid for by people who will benefit from its existence and not by those who may have no pension at all. I am not sure whether the Conservatives disagree with me, as it is a complete mystery to me what pointsif anythe hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was trying to make. I assume that his colleagues will try to extend the debate to its full 45 minutes, so I shall stand in their way no longer.

Michael Fallon: I shall try to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) when I conclude my remarks and offer my advice on which way we should vote.
	The decision on how the ombudsman scheme should be funded is a harbinger of what is in store for us. We debated the whole matter about six months ago and it is already becoming clear that under the legislation there will be more and more disputes to be sorted outwhether they involve the financial assistance scheme on the one hand, or the PPF on the other. As I shall point out in our debate tomorrowif I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speakerwe are, in essence, setting up a new form of business regulator and, as the Minister has finally realised, that regulator has to be paid for.
	The Minister's real fear is, of course, that the costs of the new regulation will be large and much more substantial than originally envisaged, because there will be disputes all over the place. There are already disputes about the scope of the financial assistance schemewhen it should apply and to whom, which schemes will be covered and so onbut they are as nothing to the disputes that will occur under the PPF once it is established. All that new regulation must be paid for.
	Ombudsmen are almost becoming a new form of regulator. When they were first set up, they were to deal with individual cases of injusticeto rule on those cases and advise the House on thembut they have now become part of the regulatory system itself. The Minister clearly expects many cases to go to them.
	Who should pay? What is clear from the motion is that the levy will fall on successful schemes. I hope the Minister has considered the fairness of that. If the levy is to be straightforward, and with no variation according to risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, it will be even more unfair, as it will bear more heavily on schemes that happen to be well funded and well managed than on those that are not. That is not particularly fair.
	Will the levy also bear on the smallest schemes? We read that those companies that have set up small-scale schemes to benefit small work forces are already fearful of the additional costs involved under the Bill in having to bail out those schemes that are on less secure ground. Of course, the House has a parallel: we were asked, under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to set up the new, all-powerful Financial Services Authority. That, too, is an example of a regulator with its own power to tax; it can set its own scale of charges, thus imposing on the good the cost of policing the bad. We should not authorise this new stealth tax on business without being sure that the Minister is doing everything possible to reduce the scope of disputes that are likely to be referred to the ombudsman.
	As we shall see tomorrow, we will end up at the end of the Pensions Bill with the worst of all worlds: fewer final salary schemes, but more and more disputes about them. That brings me, finally, to the way in which we on the Opposition Benches should decide to vote. In my view, as we can see with the last-minute haste with which the Ways and Means resolution has been introduced this evening, the Pensions Bill has been a mess. This has been a very sad story from beginning to end. A raft of clauses was added to the Bill in Committee. All those clauses have been revised in the other place, as we shall see tomorrow. Even last Friday, the Government were still making announcements about how the burden of the new legislation would be financed. The Pensions Bill is a mess created by the Government, and it will make the provision and safeguarding of pensions worse. For those reasons, we should oppose the motion.

Eric Forth: It is always a great pity that these apparently innocuous Ways and Means resolutions attract such relatively little attention from colleagues in the House, because they are, of course, a very important part of what remains of the House's influence on the sort of measures that flow from legislation. I should like to think that in some ways Members would be more interested in Ways and Means resolutions than in many other aspects of the Bills themselves.
	Some of the Minister's phrasesinnocuous and soothing though they were intended to soundrang a number of alarm bells, certainly in my mind. I made a note of the one that sticks out. He actually had to the gall to say, almost with a straight face, that all was okay, as the ombudsman would be independent because he will be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is a new doctrine altogether. We are now expected to believe that someone will be independent because he or she is appointed by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that that was a complete contradiction in terms, and it immediately set me worrying about what we are being asked to do.
	I must confess that I am not the biggest fan of the institution of ombudsmen.

John Bercow: Or of the Secretary of State.

Eric Forth: Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, or of the Secretary of State, but let us leave the Secretary of State out of this for the moment; we might bring him back a bit later because he is mentioned in the motion, thus giving us ample scope.
	What worries me about the institution of ombudsmentaken some years ago from Scandinavia, as I recallis that, generally speaking, they have few, if any, powers.

Malcolm Wicks: Europe.

Eric Forth: The Minister says, Europe. I shall get him into Hansard; I am generous in that way. Of course, some parts of Europe have been extraordinarily sensible: the Norwegians, who are a favourite of these occasions, are a shining example to us all in matters European. I often wish that we could emulate them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he knows that this is not the occasion for a general dissertation on the origins of ombudsmen.

Eric Forth: Nor, indeed, Norway, when it comes to that. The Minister did provoke me, but I will try to resist his blandishments.
	Leaving aside the origins of the institution of ombudsman for a moment, I was going to say that I am unhappy about the appearance of the ombudsman in this Ways and Means resolution because I am not convinced that ombudsmen are the great power for good that everybody seems to have come to accept that they are. I say that not only because they may have been appointed by the Secretary of State, which immediately puts a question mark over their usefulness, but because, generally speaking, they have no powers. We therefore get frustrated citizens coming to us time and time again because they expected miracles of this or that ombudsman, only to find subsequently that very little happened as a result of the ombudsman's ruling.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it is always a joy to watch a master at work. Which aspect of the powers that the Bill gives the PPF ombudsman does the right hon. Gentleman think are inadequate?

Eric Forth: I would say

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being tempted way beyond the scope of the motion. We are not discussing whether there should be an ombudsman; we are simply discussing how he should be funded.

Eric Forth: Yes, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am devastated that I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman a comprehensive reply. Perhaps we will leave that for another day; indeed, it might even be tomorrow if we follow the example of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon).
	The proposition that the Minister has brought before us is that the operation of the ombudsman will be paid for by the levy, which has quite rightly become the main object of our attention in the debate because it is the reason why the Ways and Means resolution has had to be brought to the House. Quite rightly, therefore, we are involved in a proper debate about the nature of the levy. This debate takes place against the background of the fact that, as we all know, the whole pensions industrythe whole institution of pensions in this countryis under severe strain and likely, sadly, to continue to be so. As if to add insult to injury, the Government have come forward with additional bureaucracy, whose virtues I am unable to extol because of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have no problem with that at all. However, this additional bureaucracy will involve additional cost and will therefore give rise to a levy on the very pension funds that are already under strain. That simply adds to the general accusation that we can make against the Government that the pensions industry is in dire straits largely because of actions taken by the Government over a period of time. Sadly, the resolution, which we are being asked to approve, will add to that phenomenon; it does not help the industry in any way. Personally, I would question whether it helps pension holders or beneficiaries, but we are not here to explore that on this occasion, are we Mr. Deputy Speaker?
	So, we have the levy. The Minister tried to reassure us by saying that we were not to be too worried about it, because it would cost a mere 1.5 millionhe threw that figure in as if it were a bagatelle. We are all too used now to Ministers coming to the House and bandying such figures around as if they were of no consequence whatever. Of course, to Ministers in this Government, a million here, a million there and a billion somewhere else are of little consequence. However, if they spend a billion here and a billion there, it adds up to real money in the end. Therefore, it is our duty as representatives of taxpayers or indeed, as on this occasion, of pension holders to worry about such things and to wonder whether this 1.5 million will be well spent and whether there will truly be beneficiaries. Lurking at the back of my mind is the suspicion that this may be yet another bureaucracy or yet another enhancement to an existing bureaucracyit really makes very little differencethat has little or no benefit in the end.
	Under the guise of this apparently innocuous Ways and Means resolution, there lurk all sorts of very worrying issuesthe levy, the amount of the levy, the bureaucracy that will be created and, worst of all perhaps, the Minister's assertion that we need not worry, because the Secretary of State will see it all right in the end. I am sure that the Minister has the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, and would that he were with us today to give us some reassurance as to how the independence of this person whom he will appoint will be maintained. Again, however, that is not something that we should be pursuing on this occasion. However, the thought must linger.
	So, all in all, this apparently innocuous little measure has a number of very unsatisfactory aspects.

John Bercow: I am reluctant to have to chide publicly my right hon. Friend, but it really is about time, after his 21 years in the House, that he told us what he really thinks. His tendency to self-effacement is pretty unsatisfactory. I want the gravamen behind his argument to be clear in my mind. Is he saying to the House that the problem with the ombudsman will be that he or she will tend to be the craven lickspittle of the Government, that he or she will make no decisions, or that he or she will, in the end, be inclined simply to prevaricate?

Eric Forth: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can save the right hon. Gentleman the embarrassment of having to respond to that dangerous intervention. We are not discussing that matter today, but simply the cost of the ombudsman.

Eric Forth: Yes, indeed, which prevents me from saying that I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want to say that in these circumstances. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because given that the resolution refers explicitly to the ombudsman, we must give a passing thought to whether we will get value for money from the levy that is linked to the ombudsman. That gives rise to speculation about how effective the ombudsman might be, which was, I think, the point that my hon. Friend was trying to get at, although I would of course not dream of pursuing it because it is not for me to dwell on lickspittles, prevarication, or any other aspect of what the ombudsman might be able to do on behalf of pension holders.
	The Minister will have to do much better than he did in his opening remarks to persuade me and, I suspect, one or two of my hon. Friends, that we should approve the Ways and Means resolution. Perhaps it should be taken away and thought about for a longer time so that we can spare such a burden from the already over-burdened holders of pensions.

Malcolm Wicks: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
	I understand that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) regularly entertains the House on Fridays with such fearless scrutiny. It makes me sad that I cannot be here to see it more often, but my constituency engagements often make me busy on Fridays and I fully intend that to remain the case.
	I shall not say that this debate is much ado about nothing, because it has something to do with public spendingI certainly do not wish to provoke the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst into another speech. However, we are talking about a relatively small amount of public money.
	I was not quite sure what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was saying, which was a difficulty that I had with him in recent months in Committee. I think the Tories' position, despite the variety of views expressed by their renegade Back Benchers, is that they support the ombudsman, but I am unclear about how they would pay for it. The hon. Gentleman talks about stealth taxes on business, but if he is against funding the ombudsman through schemes, he is saying, by implication, that the taxpayer should fund it. Why? I can tell the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that having reflected on the matter, we thought that it would be fairer for schemes to pay for the ombudsman. The Tory position is, as usual, absolutely unclear. I shall not be tempted into talking about risk-based or flat-rate levies because they are not relevant to the modest, yet important, motion.
	The levy will be relatively small. The 1.5 million figure that I cited is the current cost incurred through the pensions ombudsman. If that were replicated for the pension protection fund ombudsman, the cost would be 10p per member per year. However, we expect the cost to be much lessno more than perhaps 6p per member per year. Although I appreciate what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we are talking about only a few pence per year, which must be far less than the cost of several hon. Members' fearless scrutiny of legislation in the House of Commonsimportant and vital though some would no doubt say that that is.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to give way because I am anxious for clarification of the Tories' position.

Nigel Waterson: I am anxious for clarification of the Government's position. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) shows no sign of stirring, I thought that I would ask the Minister a question on his behalf. If we are talking about such a small amountwe have heard that one before in Committeewhy did the Government change their mind about the funding of the personage?

Malcolm Wicks: Well, 1 million is 1 million, and we thought, on balance, that that should be paid by schemes whose members could in extremiswe hope that they will not have to call on the PPFbenefit from the fund. We do not think that it would be right for the general taxpayer to pay for the ombudsman. I remain uncertain about how the Tories would pay for a measure that I think they support. I shall give way if the hon. Member for Eastbourne wishes to clarify their position. Obviously he does not wish to do so.
	I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was opposing the pension protection fund and thus the ombudsman. Is he at odds with his Front Bench? I repeat that we are discussing an important safeguard and that the ombudsman will cost only a few pence per member per year.
	We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst

John Bercow: Right hon. Member.

Malcolm Wicks: We heard a lot from the very right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I was not sure what he was saying. Does he support the pension protection fund? If he does support it, does he support the idea of an ombudsman? [Interruption.] I am trying to bring a little gravitas to what has been a fairly light-hearted debate. If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the ombudsman, how will he pay for it? That is not clear, but what is clear is that the Government support the PPF. We think that there should be a PPF ombudsman and we have clear views about how the modest cost should be paid.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of charges by virtue of the Act for the purpose of meeting expenditure of the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Ombudsman for the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, we may take the motions together.

Hon. Members: No.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 128.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Environmental Protection (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

Thames Gateway

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Keith Hill: I am delighted to introduce this Adjournment debate on the Thames gateway in the immediate aftermath of our announcement of a further 100 million of investment in infrastructure and community facilities in the gateway and at a time of intense media interest in the area.
	A Thames gateway is not a new idea. Indeed, London owes its very existence to the Thames acting as a gateway to England. John Burns who, with Keir Hardie, was one of the first MPs to be elected on a socialist platform, termed the Thames liquid history. As a Liberal Minister, John Burns was responsible for steering the first ever planning Act through Parliament in 1909. As the House will know, I have recently been responsible for steering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 through Parliament, so I feel an affinity with him, even though he crossed the Floor. I hasten to reassure the House, however, that I have no intention of following that precedent. John Burns said that his planning Act aimed to secure
	the home healthy, the house beautiful, the town pleasant and the suburbs salubrious.
	Those words, in the phrasing of the time, express a vision of the future. In some places, that vision was fulfilled, but in others we failed to deliver it. Today, we have a new opportunity to do so in the Thames gateway.
	In the Thames gateway, there are nearly 4,000 hectares of brownfield land 17 per cent. of the total in the regionlocated between London and mainland Europe. It is a massive area of market failure and relative deprivation, lying amid the buoyant economy and prosperity of the rest of the south-east. The regeneration of the gateway as a national, regional and local priority has been in plan since the early 1990s. Since then, a great deal of valuable and vital work has been done to set the stage for new development. Far-sighted decisions were taken, for example to route the channel tunnel rail link through the gateway, and create new stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet to act as development hubs.
	That has taken us a critical part of the way, but we need to do more. What was in the past desirable about the gateway is now essential. Housing growth will happen, and it is inevitable. For various reasons, including economic expansion, household growth in this country will continue at a high rate for the foreseeable future. The Government Actuary's Department estimates that household growth will average 189,000 homes a year between 2001 and 2021. Most of that growth will occur in London and the south-east, and most of it will be generated within the south-east. Indeed, the current draft of the Kent and Medway structure plan indicates that no less than 73 per cent. of household growth between 2001 and 2021 in the county arises from indigenous demographics and household growth and change. The serious question is not whether to have the growth, but how we manage it for the benefit of our communities and the environment.
	We should seek to focus that growth within our existing urban areas, and that is exactly what we are doing. Within the wider south-east, London is the motor of growth, but it has the lowest housing density of any world-class city. The potential for housing growth in London is enormous, and it is already under way. In 2003, housing completions in London and south-east showed a year-on-year increase of 14 per cent.9 per cent. in the south-east outside London and 24 per cent. in London itself. In the first six months of this year, there was a huge annual increase in completions in London of 30 per cent, and there is more to come. I am delighted that we have identified a considerable appetite for further housing development among the London boroughs. The Government office for London has recently created a London housing delivery unit, and we are already engaging with no fewer than 17 London boroughs to explore the opportunities for housing development. Much of the housing growth planned for the gateway itself will take place on the great brownfield sites of east London in the London Thames gateway. Stratford city has the potential to deliver about 20,000 homes; the Greenwich peninsula, about 10,000 homes; and Barking Reach has a maximum capacity of about 12,000 homes.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister has set out the number of houses that will be built on brownfield sites, but could he say how many houses he expects to be built on greenfield sites?

Keith Hill: I shall come on to that and, indeed, I wish to dwell on the issue. The short answer, as I shall explain, is that all the planned development in the gateway is on brownfield sites, and we expect the vast majority of housing growth in the gateway to be on recycled land.

Jonathan R Shaw: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), is not the point that we know where the brownfield sites are? Before 1997, there was no audit of brownfield sites and people did not know where they were. We have done the work, however, and have identified the sites.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is quite right. Before 1997, there was but a feeble commitment by Government to development on brownfield land. This Government's record, however, is extremely impressive, and I shall give the figures in due course.

Edward Davey: rose

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is hovering, so I shall give way to him.

Edward Davey: The debate about brownfield and greenfield sites also involves a debate about definitions. In a suburban constituency like mine, many local residents are surprised to learn that their gardens are deemed to be brownfield, and backland development can completely change the nature of a residential area. Will the Minister comment on that problem, which is causing great stress among some of my constituents?

Keith Hill: I accept that that is a concern in suburban areasindeed, it is a concern in my own constituency. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not in the gateway, and it is the long-standing policy of this Government and our predecessor that such development is permissible. A balance about the appropriateness of such backland development, however, must be struck.

Bob Spink: rose

Keith Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am especially fond of him, but then I wish to make progress.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. I am equally fond of him and look forward to meeting him shortly to discuss park homes. He will accept that my constituency is part of the Thames gateway and that we have an increased housing target of 4,000 new houses. Does he accept that there is no way in which we could find brownfield sites in Castle Point for all those homes? Will he confirm that to accommodate those 4,000 additional houses, it is Government policy to release greenfield sites in Castle Point?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into the detail of specific site allocations. I do not deny for a second that there is an element of greenfield release in the housing programme in the Thames gateway. I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman's constituency, having campaigned fruitlessly for his predecessor in Castle Point, and know that there are brownfield opportunities there.
	Elsewhere in the gateway, we will pursue our housing growth agenda through the redevelopment of neglected town centres, extensions to existing urban settlements, and the development of derelict industrial landscapes. Nobody who has viewed the vast swathes of worked-out quarries at Ebbsfleet and Eastern Quarry can be in any doubt about the huge benefits to the environment and to existing and future communities that will result from the development of the new urban villages planned for those sites.
	No reasonable person can doubt the Government's commitment to securing the maximum development on recycled sites. The latest land use change statistics published three weeks ago show that 67 per cent. of all new dwellings in England were built on brownfield sites in both 2002 and 2003. That compares favourably with the 56 per cent. that we inherited in 1997. Those statistics also show that new dwellings in England were built at an average density of 33 dwellings per hectare in 2003. That compares with 27 dwellings per hectare in 2002, and only 25 in 1997. We have even more ambitious density figures for the Thames gateway. Indeed, as I said, all planned development in the gateway is on brownfield land.
	The Thames gateway represents the largest collection of brownfield land next to a capital city in Europe. The vast majority of development in the gateway can be accommodated on existing derelict land. As I indicated, densities of development will be higher than those previously tolerated, and this will guard against profligate land use. At an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare, there is more than enough brownfield land in the gateway to accommodate the housing growth targets that the Government propose. So much for the doomsday scenarios of the concreting over the countryside brigade, the head-in-the-sand, die-in-the-ditch opponents of all, or any, changethe green Tories, as I prefer to call them.
	In the context of the demands for growth in the south-east and the need for an affordable solution to its housing needs, the gateway offers the region's key opportunity for sustainable growthgrowth that will not only deliver a housing solution, but will address the underlying weaknesses of the area by providing economic and employment opportunities, environmental improvement and community renewal that will bring benefits to new and existing residents. It is this that lends it national significance.
	Of course, we are determined to reduce the economic differential between north and south, and we are pursuing policies such as the northern way to address that. But choking economic growth in the south does not mean more prosperity for the north. Someone going on the dole in Dartford does not mean a job for an unemployed worker in Sunderland. It simply means more jobs for our global competitors. That is why the gateway forms the cornerstone of the sustainable communities plan launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last year, and that is why we have put in place the arrangements necessary to take forward this sustainable programme.The gateway agenda is about accelerating delivery and expanding the scale of growth that can be achieved by 2016. At the same time, we will reinforce the quality and sustainability of the development that takes place, and ensure that the benefits reach the gateway community as a whole.
	A further and major boost for the Thames gateway is the UK's bid to hold the 2012 Olympics in the lower Lea valley, near Stratford. As the House is aware, today is the day that we are submitting our candidature file to the International Olympic Committee. If our bid is successful, an Olympic park will be built close to the new Stratford international station to house the Olympic stadium, Olympic village, aquatics centre, velodrome and other facilities, including the administrative nerve centre for the games. A successful bid would accelerate the new homes and jobs planned for the lower Lea valley, transform the environment and provide a legacy of first-class sporting facilities. Together with the development of Stratford city, it will create a modern new quarter for London and a new metropolitan role for the area, which will help to drive regeneration for many years to come.
	So what are the policies and principles in place to make the gateway happen? First, there is a gateway vision, to which all the key bodies can sign up. People say, Where is the gateway vision? We have a clear framework for growth that was introduced in regional planning guidance in 1995 and continues to underpin the development proposals that have evolved since then. There is the focus for growth at the western end of the gateway around Stratford and Canary Wharf, with new strategic transport links to the rest of the gateway and beyond.

Edward Davey: The Minister mentioned planning guidance from 1995. Is it not true that the Government want to review that guidance in the next year or two?

Keith Hill: As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, all regional planning guidance falls to be reviewed after a period of time. It is true that RPG9 is in the process of review by the regional assembly, and I dare say we shall hear more about that in due course.
	The creation of a new development hub at Ebbsfleet, centred on the new channel tunnel rail link station, and the consolidation of other regional centres at Medway, Southend and Thurrock will provide the region with competitive locations for modern business services. The modernisation of the gateway's port and distribution economyby tonnage, the ports in the gateway already collectively represent the largest in the UKwill help to ensure the future of this vital sector. The renewal of the gateway's existing town centres will provide improved local services, new housing and employment. The creation of new and improved green spaces on a strategic scale will transform the image of the area, and the creation of new sustainable settlements at locations such as Barking Reach, Greenwich peninsula and Ebbsfleet will provide new high quality housing.
	The Mayor of London and the regional planning bodies for Kent and Essex endorsed this framework for growth in their recent inter-regional planning statement for the gateway, which was published in August. The statement supports the housing target of 120,000 that we put forward in the communities plan. In fact, it proposes to increase that figure by 8,000, which we heartily welcome. The statement also, for the first time, distributes this growth across the gateway to reflect the area's pattern of brownfield land.
	The second principle of our approach is partnership. There is the commitment and strategic co-ordination of Government Departments, regional bodies and public agencies to deliver the policy, programmes and funding to support the gateway agenda.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. He is well aware that Thames gateway recently provided a substantial grant to Rochford district council to allow the refurbishment of Rayleigh windmill and related developments in Rayleigh town centre. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for that decision. However, I have a question about infrastructure. All the house building that is envisaged, be it on greenfield or brownfield sites, will place severe pressure on our infrastructure in the gateway area, not least NHS infrastructure. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us tonight where the new district general hospital in Essex is to be located?

Keith Hill: Of course, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that decision or detail, but I can tell him that the Department of Health, which is being extremely proactive in its support for the gateway, has committed 40 million over the next two years to primary care trusts in the area. We are very pleased with that, and further funding will flow through in the conventional way. Let me acknowledge my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's thanks for the decision about the Rayleigh windmilla decision that was taken on entirely objective but absolutely merited grounds.

Richard Ottaway: On infrastructure

Keith Hill: On infrastructure, I am reluctant to detain the House for too long, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), he spoke about the NHS. The key to development of the gateway is transport. Will he set out the transport proposals to deal with plans with which, by and large, I agree?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that expression of support. My feeling is that there is a broad consensus on the gateway programme. It is worth bearing in mind that the majority of the local authorities with which we are working closely on the gateway project are Conservative authorities, and we have an excellent working relationship with them. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about transport infrastructure is yes, I propose to say a few words about that in due course, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, will say more, if he ever gets the chance.
	In the meantime let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the 2.1 billion investment in the south-east that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced as a result of the multimodal study earlier this year. Furthermore, the Government are committed to a gateway investment programme of almost 900 million, much of which will be devoted to transport infrastructure. In addition, I shall say a word in due course about the forthcoming community infrastructure fund, which will be jointly administered by my Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Department for Transport.
	On joint working, new working arrangements have been set up to allow Departments to work together to deliver the sustainable communities agenda in the gateway. The Cabinet Committee on growth areas, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, leads these arrangements, and it brings together all the key delivery Departments.
	The ODPM has published a joint strategy with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Greening the Gateway, which calls for the Thames gateway to become a world-class model of sustainable development with the living landscape at its heart.
	We are working with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to ensure timely forward planning for health facilities and schools. On top of mainstream funding allocations the DOH is, as I have indicated, providing an additional 40 million over the next two years to PCTs in the growth areas. We have kick-started a major programme of unique new university campus developments at Southend, Medway and the Royal docks.
	I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport for their work to bring forward key transport infrastructure. The Thames gateway bridge, the concept for which dates back to before the middle of the last century, is now a real proposition. Hon. Members will have seen the pictures of the fantastic new channel tunnel domestic trains for which orders have now been placed. Those are massive boosts for the gateway, particularly when they are set against the competing budgetary pressures that those projects have faced. The newly established 200 million community infrastructure fund, which my Department and the DFT jointly administer, will provide additional grants to support transport infrastructure up to 2008 in the four growth areas, including the Thames gateway.
	In addition, we are working closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that sustainable flood risk management is incorporated into gateway developments. My Department is represented on the Environment Agency's Thames estuary 2100 project to address flood protection into the next century. I should add that the gateway already has a higher standard of flood protection than most other parts of the country.
	The Housing Corporation, English Partnerships, the regional development agencies and the learning and skills councils have all established internal structures that provide a policy focus on the gateway. The learning and skills councils have recently launched their Thames gateway skills audit to ensure that we get the right people with the right skills in the right places. I am also pleased to report that we will shortly re-establish, by popular demand, an expanded Thames gateway strategic partnership to co-ordinate progress at the strategic level.
	The third ingredient in our gateway strategy is local delivery capacity. The gateway may be a strategic idea, but it will actually happen locally. The different locations in the gateway each have their own bespoke issues, opportunities, and agendas, and the quality of local planning and delivery will ultimately determine the success of the project and secure the quality and sustainability that we seek.
	It is critical that we have organisations in place with the capacity to define local priorities, to develop the necessary local programmes and, fundamentally, to integrate both the growth strategy with other local programmes and new communities with the old. We have established new bodies in each of the major development areas of the gateway to take responsibility for those tasks.
	In two cases, Thurrock and east London, where the task is particularly challenging, we have established urban development corporations with the support of the local authorities involved. The boards of both urban development corporations are now in place and senior executive staff are being recruited. Those bodies are identifying the key priorities for their areas and the critical actions necessary to resolve them, and they will draw together existing public and private plans to deliver an effective local investment programme.
	At the same time, we have created a new gateway delivery officenot in Whitehall, but in the gateway itselfwhich will take charge of the ODPM gateway funding programme, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister formally launched the new office last week. The gateway delivery office will contain a proactive and accessible team, which will work closely with local partners to deliver an effective programme, sort out problems, monitor progress and achieve results.
	The fourth strand of the Government's approach to the gateway lies in the planning and resourcing of investment to deliver the timely provision of infrastructure and to attract private investment to create the more liveable environment and more viable locations for business that we seekthat task is big, but manageable. Mainstream programmes are also in place, and I have already mentioned the transport programme and the new universities. Much of the expenditure required, particularly for social infrastructure such as health facilities, hospitals and schools, will be drawn down from national budgets in the conventional way.
	Those costs are not unique to the gateway, but reflect the planned increase in population forecast in the gateway. The critical issue is not funding, but effective planning and management. However, additional Government investment will be required in certain critical areas. The ODPM has allocated a substantial new gateway budget to address those areas and other priorities, which represents an 850 million commitment to the area for the first five years of the programme.
	In consultation with local partners, 475 million has been allocated to date to early opportunities and immediate priorities. Last week, 100 million of that funding was announced for new projects ranging from major site preparation in Kent Thameside to local community, business and training facilities in areas of relative deprivation in Sheerness, Poplar and Barking.
	The private sector is the other critical area of resource. The private utility companies clearly have a direct role to play and private finance will additionally play an important part in funding new transport and other social infrastructure, using mechanisms that are now well established.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am conscious that I may be straining the patience of the House. [Hon. Members: No!] I am sure that hon. Members are eager for me to move on to the fifth and final principle that informs our approach, so I shall hurry along to it.
	The private sector is already very active across some of the key development areas in the gateway. It is already investing massive resources in planning and site preparation: Stratford city, Isle of Dogs, Silvertown quays, Ebbsfleet, north-east Gravesend, Dartford Park and Barking Reach are all either on site or at an advanced planning stage, and those are just the big projects. We have established a developer forum to meet regularly with developers to identify and tackle key barriers to delivery.
	The fifth principle of the gateway strategy lies in securing the key policy goals to achieve sustainable objectives, which involves quality and imagination of design and construction and the reuse of brownfield land. We have taken steps nationally to promote higher densities and better design. For example, English Partnerships has already used urban design codes at Greenwich Millennium village.
	The Government have also made a commitment to developing a sustainable buildings code to establish higher standards for energy and water efficiency, waste and use of materials. The Thames gateway will be the focus for demonstration schemes to test sustainable construction methods, supply chains and economic viability. The gateway will rightly be in the vanguard of new design and construction standards.
	It goes without saying that the gateway is a big project. It will require time, resources, imagination and a lot of effort to realise, but it offers enormous rewards. It is currently fashionable to say how complicated the scheme is. Yes, the project can look complicated from the outside, and we recognise that we must present the gateway in a way that existing businesses and residents and potential new investors can understand.
	Most importantly, local people, both those who currently live in the gateway and those who will move into the area, will need to see the benefits. On Tuesday of last week, I went on a whistle-stop tour of the gateway to coincide with our announcement of a further 100 million tranche of investment in infrastructure, and I saw for myself the progress in creating sustainable communities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I visited Poplar to celebrate our investment of 4 million in the A12 junctions project, which will, for the first time, link hitherto isolated housing estates, such as the Teviot estate, to the new employment, retail and leisure opportunities of the Leaside regeneration.
	I visited Basildon to celebrate, with the Basildon Renaissance Partnership, our investment of 100,000 in the feasibility study for the proposed Basildon centre for sporting excellence, which, if successful, will provide first-class opportunities for sports development, recreational sport and preventive health care, and will offer a key training location for the 2012 Olympics in London. That comes on top of nearly 30 million of investment by my Department in housing and regeneration projects in Basildon.
	I also visited Swanscombe in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for further celebrations, this time of our 1 million investment in road and environmental improvements, not least the refurbishment of community halls in a locality that sometimes feared that it would not benefit from planned housing developments in the Dartford area.
	In Swanscombe, in Basildon and in Poplar, there was a recognition of the opportunities for a better quality of life arising out of the Thames gateway project, and an enthusiasm for the Government's determination that both existing and future communities will benefit from the gateway scheme. The Thames gateway is positive, exciting and it is definitely now on the move.

Robert Syms: I welcome this debate on the Thames gateway. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members from that area both behind me and on the Government Benches. [Hon. Members: Not behind you.] I do not think that the area is over-represented by Conservatives yet, but perhaps by the end of next year things will change. [Interruption.] I am a modest person.
	There is an all-party consensus on this issue. If the commitment to communities is to mean anything, it must be a commitment that all of us sign up to. A long-term investment is necessary to turn many communities around, and one hopes that it will continue when Governments change.
	Much of what the Government have done has built on the work of previous Governments, under both Baroness Thatcher and John Major, and Lord Heseltine provided much of the vision that started the process. If we look at what happened in docklands, we see that there are some useful lessons on how to approach extending development to the Thames gateway.
	In most of the post-war years, very little was done in some of these communities. There is now a great deal more hope about what politicians with sensible policies can bring to many communities. London is a success story.

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend speaks of post-war success. If I had made a third intervention on the Minister, I would have reminded him that there was an urban development corporation for docklands. If the Thames gateway were made into an urban development corporation with powers, Ministers would be even more certain about the proposal. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?

Robert Syms: I understand that there is consultation about whether to create a corporation for some of the area, but the concern is that the corporation would take in three regions: the eastern region, the southern region and London. A good deal of co-ordination will be required if that is to be successful. I see no reason why that should not happen, as long as there is the clear vision that the Minister mentioned.
	Planning policy guidance 9A needs to be updated. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, it is nearly 10 years old. Some things have certainly changed over the past 10 years, so I suspect that an update is necessary. From what I can see from the information, there is already a commitment to update it after the south-east plan has been updated.
	London is a successful city. It is a city of contrasts. As with other wealthy communities, in and around London there have always been areas of great deprivation. Any sensible politician will want to do what they can to improve the conditions of people in that area. People in parts of the east end and the Thames gateway suffer from poor health and education and higher unemployment than perhaps other areas of the capital. Generally speaking, that is why we welcome the approach that has been taken. As the Minister set out, it is no small undertaking. There may be substantial differences between Opposition Members and Labour Members on the sustainable communities plan in its entirety, particularly on building on green fields in some of our shire counties, but the Thames gateway is one aspect of the plan where there is much common ground.
	If we can make the Thames gateway a success, we can mitigate a lot of the urban migration that is putting pressure on some of our shires, where there is great opposition to development. If we make it a success, I do not think that we will necessarily need to build the number of houses to which the Government seem to be committed.

Andrew Love: May I characterise the hon. Gentleman's position as being that the Conservatives are happy to build houses in areas where they are not represented, but that they do not want to build houses in any of their own areas?

Robert Syms: The Government and the Opposition agreed that it is best to build on brownfield sites. There are many opportunities in the Thames gateway. It would be a pity if we did not look at those opportunities before we took decisions that meant that we had to build on greenfield sites.

Howard Stoate: Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the plan of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to build a new city called Thames Reach south of Swanscombe and Greenhithe in the middle of the green belt in my constituency? He envisages a major city with many thousands of houses more than the number currently agreed. I wonder whether that is now Tory party policy and whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the right hon. Gentleman.

Robert Syms: It is not policy. The key issue is that the sensible thing for any politician to do is to look first at urban areas where there are brownfield sites and opportunities. Otherwise, businesses and investment will be driven towards greenfield sites, which, as we all know, are cheaper to develop than many brownfield sites. With this development120,000 new homes, 180,000 jobs, 80,000 hectares, 40 miles by 20 mileswe are talking about a major concern. If it is a success, it will be a major area of growth and building for the next 20 to 30 years.
	What needs to be done to make it a success? We need to set more targets, so that we can measure how we are getting on. Up-front investment is the key. If there is confidence among the financial institutions, they will invest because they will see the long-term ability to make profit from those areas. The Government have talked about levering in 2 billion of investment. We all know that the area will develop and grow only if private sector funds, pension funds and other major financial institutions feel that it will be profitable and take an interest in those areas.
	The key difficulty is transport and infrastructure. We all know that there is a shopping list of transport projects, some of which are coming to fruition, some of which are planned. We have heard about the channel tunnel rail link, which we think will be finished by 2007; the Greenwich waterfront and east London transit scheme; the east London line extension; the docklands light railway extension to City airport by 2005 and further extensions. The proposal for the Thames gateway bridge at the moment is for a private finance initiative scheme with a toll to link both sides of the estuary, which will open lots of opportunities. Substantial road improvements are also proposed. The Government have so far committed about 600 million for these schemes. It is important to get the transport right. In docklands, there was growth but the extension of the underground was delayed. Transport should come first if we are to lever in investment for housing and development.
	There is concern that there has already been some backtracking on certain schemes. Transport for London's scheme for linking Barking Reach and Barking town centre is now proposed to be a bus route rather than a transit scheme. The rail passenger committee for southern England says that the poor rail network in the region could cripple development.
	The Minister did not mention Crossrail. The City of London and many hon. Members have long felt that Crossrail, with its Stratford link, is essential to the development of the area, but we are also aware that it is a remarkably expensive scheme. Whenever Crossrail has briefed me, it has said that most of the track is there, but it just needs to link up this area and that area. As a Transport Minister is to wind up the debate, perhaps he can enlighten us a little more about progress on Crossrail and how it could affect investment in the area.
	Infrastructure is key, but as the region covers not only London but parts of Essex and Kent, it needs to be fairly distributed between the urban and non-urban areas. Most of the schemes that I have seen so far tend to concentrate on the London bit rather than on Essex or Kent. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has tabled several parliamentary questions about services in Essex. Those communities must get the investment if they are expected to take additional housing and development. If development is to be forced in, the investment must come first. The siting of hospitals, for example, is a key issue.
	The Mayor and the regional planning bodies of both the south and the east believe that there is substantially more capacity to build in the area if sufficient investment is made. As many as 300,000 houses have been mentioned; again, investment is the key. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which, along with some of the Labour Members present today, is not all that keen on development in rural areas, has also cottoned on to the fact that one could lift some of the levels and targets in the Thames gateway. The investment has to be up front.
	When the housing is built, it is important that the communities are as self-contained as possible, with health, education, culture, media and open spaces all provided for. The Minister mentioned that in his speech. It is important that all the facilities be included in planning guidance. It is important also to be able to get in and out of the Thames gateway, as one suspects many people will need to do for employment purposes. It is also important to minimise the number of people who have to move around.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman mentioned media in passing. I trespass on his speech to say that if the BBC listens to the debate or reads his speech it should take cognisance of the fact that there is no Thames gateway television or radio. In Tilbury, on the north bank, I get Kent BBC television, and the area does not get London services. The media must take account of what is demonstrably a new area. The BBC in particular is way behind, but commercial television is not really meeting the challenge either.

Robert Syms: That is a good point. Although we may disagree about regional identities, TV station identities certainly inform the way in which people think about their region. I am in the Meridian area, and Meridian claims to serve people not too far from the hon. Gentleman's region, so the service stretches all the way from Dorset to the Thames gateway. Media can certainly define an area very successfully.
	The Minister said clearly that most of the identified sites for development were brownfield, but the majority of the area is greenfield, and there is green belt within it. It is important to tease out the priorities for development. I know that the CPRE is concerned about the temptation to go for some of the greenfield sites in Essex and Kent before investing in some of the more expensive redevelopment sites in London. Given that the Government have on occasions encroached on green belt, we need a clear statement on how they feel about the piece of green belt on this side of London.
	The Minister spoke a great deal about density levels but gave no specific commitment. Figures of 90 to 100 per hectare have been mentioned, and perhaps the Minister who winds up can be more specific about what level the Government consider appropriate. In previous developments, shortcuts have sometimes been taken, so it is important to have high-quality as well as high-density development.
	The Environment Agency and others have estimated that perhaps 4 billion will have to be spent on flood defences in the area. The Environment Agency issues maps, and PPG25 should inform planning authorities, but it is clearly a matter for concern. If there is a flood on the site in 20 years' time, when many houses have been built, people will ask how we could let the development go ahead without proper flood prevention measures. The time to consider the issue is now, not after the houses have been built.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend will be aware that flooding is an emotive issue in Essex, going all the way back to the great flood of 1953the terrible events of that night are not lost on us in the county even today. That being the case, it is a great pity that the Government decided to abolish the Essex local flood defence committee, which had a tremendous track record. Does he agree that safety must be paramount and the Government must be more careful about the flooding implications of the proposed developments?

Robert Syms: Of course. The Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend said, and indeed he mentioned flooding in his speech. Of course we must take sensible measures to ensure that any development is safe.

Keith Hill: I am sure that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is in the business of scaremongering. The Thames is protected to a level of one in 1,000 years, and that will remain the case up to 2030. In the meantime, much work is being done, led by the Environment Agency, to put in place appropriate defences for the future beyond that year. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: PPG25 informs every aspect from regional to local planning decisions in terms of flood risk and assessment. Every ODPM and local vehicle delivery project is also subject to rigorous flood risk assessment, and we are using the opportunity of the greening of the gateway to think creatively about sustainable flood defences. I want to establish it absolutely on the record that the Government are seized of the issue and every possible measure is being taken to increase the already high levels of flood defence in the Thames gateway.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for his assurance that Conservative Members are not scaremongering. It is obviously sensible to think before building lots of houses.

Mark Francois: I, too, am grateful for what the Minister has said. As my hon. Friend will know, there has been a lively debate on these issues between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the Minister has given us some reassurance. I hope that he will continue to bear the issues in mind as development proceeds.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend has made his own point.
	The Minister mentioned skills. There is concern about whether there are enough skills to deal with this level of development, especially in regard to the built environment. The way in which development is going means that there are already shortages of planning officers, which is why planning appeals sometimes take so long. I was pleased to learn that the Minister had announced a skills audit by the Learning and Skills Council. It would be a pity if people affected by unemployment above the national average could not take advantage of the growth and inward investment that will result from this project.
	Other anxieties have been expressed. For instance, there is the possibility of people building up land banks on brownfield sites in order to sit on rising land values. There are also general environmental worries. There is, for example, a substantial water shortage; indeed, all the public utilities need to undertake major investment. Given the degree of development involved, we should ask whether we should try to improve environmental standards in some of the homes. In Australia, there are double flushes on lavatories to conserve water.
	I will not detain the House further, because many Members with local interests want to speak. There is considerable common ground, and we have a great opportunity. Investment must be made at the outset to give confidence to the private sector; we need design of a decent quality; and we need to involve people in the area, because much of the development will change its geography considerably. If it is all done properly, however, I think we can offset some of the pressures affecting greenfield sites.
	I welcome the debate, and look forward to hearing other speeches.

Howard Stoate: I welcome the opportunity to speak in such an important debate.
	The people of Dartford are extremely proud of their heritage, which they see as one of the engine rooms of the Kent economy. Dartford has been home to many great engineers and thinkers of bygone ages. Hiram Maxim, who made such a contribution to powered flight, lived there. Trevithick did much of his engineering work there. Burroughs, Wellcome, one of the first and most important drugs companies in the world, set up shop in Dartford and has done extremely well. Dartford is also reported to be the site of the first-ever commercially successful paper mill. It has a long and proud heritage. We recognise, however, that we have moved into a post-industrial age, and that businesses that have long outlived their usefulness need to be regenerated. Dartford needs new jobs, new investment, better and more modern housing and a cleaner environment if it is to be an exciting area of which we can be proud in future.
	That is all very well and good and the people of Dartford are certainly onside, but development must take place in a measured way. We must ensure that the area can sustain so much investment, and we must pay careful attention to detail in terms of infrastructure. The area must be enhanced rather than being damaged further.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the new shadow Secretary of State for deregulation, has called for the creation of a new city to be called Thames Reach, with its heart in the Swanscombe and Greenhithe areas. He wants to see thousands of extra houses built in Kent Thameside, in addition to the proposed brownfield developments at Eastern Quarry, Swanscombe peninsula and Ebbsfleet, to meet the housing needs of the rest of the south-east. He has said:
	there is a large area suitable for development bounded by the settlements of Northfleet and Greenhithe along the river banks, with Swanscombe, Bean and Darenth to the south . . . The idea is to add to the development projects already identified and up and running for both Kent Thameside and the Swale and Medway Districts. We need a new city centre to the south of the planned Swanscombe and Greenhithe developments, with better community facilities alongside more housing to the south of the current planned developments.
	The right hon. Gentleman's proposal amounts to nothing less than the concreting over of north Kent, with large swathes of green belt and farmland in Dartford bulldozed to make way for new housing. It will destroy the character and integrity of existing communities such as Swanscombe and Greenhithe, which every effort is being made to preserve. It will effectively swallow up the communities of Bean, Darenth, Betsham and Southfleet, pleasant Kent villages that currently enjoy the countryside and the rolling green fields that surround them. It undermines the claims of local Tories that their party is committed to the defence of the green belt and the countryside. Moreover, it demonstrates that the Tories want to use parts of north Kent to meet all the south-east's future house-building needs, thus ensuring that their own heartland areas are not affected.
	Even if this madcap scheme could somehow be brought to fruition, I seriously doubt that the local infrastructure could begin to cope with so much strain on its limited resources. A recent report by the planning committee of the South East regional assembly questions whether even the projected housing growth in the Thames gateway is sustainable, given the limitations of our water supply and sewage treatment network and the fact that one of the lowest levels of annual rainfall in the country is found in the south-east, and north Kent in particular.
	The Environment Agency has pointed out that per capita water consumption has risen by between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. in the last 10 years, and that 80 per cent. of water in Kent comes from groundwater. The level of rainfall received by the south-east is the lowest among UK regions: it is only about 740 mm a year. All that will obviously put a huge strain on existing supply, and Kent county council estimates that an additional 70 million will be needed in Kent Thameside in the next few years to speed up utility connections, flood defences and land reclamation. We are already seeing signs that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded significantly even to deal with the planned development, let alone another entire city.
	What about the effect on air quality? Dartford borough council has set up an air quality management area around the A282 tunnel approach road to mitigate the impact of traffic emissions. Traffic emissions in the area 72 per cent. above the Government's nitrogen dioxide objective, and 54 per cent. above the PM2that refers to particulate matterobjective. Through traffic along the A282 accounts for at least 25 per cent. of emissions in the area.
	As traffic levels in Kent Thameside increase over the next 20 years, air quality in Dartford could easily deteriorate further. Additional air quality management areas are already being planned at the Bean interchange, St. Clements way, East Hill and Park road, the Brent-Watling street junction and Lowfield street. Dartford council is at least doing its bit to monitor air quality, but we must ensure that an appropriate standard is maintained. Additional funds to promote more sustainable local transport solutions are urgently needed.
	One obvious source of income is the Dartford river crossing. Each year it generates 55 million in income. Only about 1 million of that is earmarked for local transport uses in Kent Thameside. I believe that its share must be increased, as a matter of urgency.

Bob Spink: I believe that there is currently a 60 million surplus from the operation of the Dartford crossing. It lies in the coffers unspent. Legislation has stated that the money should be spent on local infrastructure improvements. Will the hon. Gentleman accept this offer from me? I will back his being given, say, 25 per cent. of that15 millionfor his local road improvements if he will back my being given 15 million to help build Canvey's third road.

Howard Stoate: That is an intriguing idea. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will be my agent and I will be his agent in this deal. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that a good chunk of the money is put into a local transport infrastructure that mitigates the effects of increased traffic and air pollution generated by the extra traffic that we see.
	Even with improvements to public transport and with a rail freight network, additional capacity needs to be built into the road network in Kent Thameside. Urgent consideration needs to be given to upgrading the A2/B255 Bean interchange. The junction currently serves the Bluewater regional shopping centre, Greenhithe village and the A206, which runs to the Dartford river crossings. It is also due to serve the Eastern Quarry development, a 740-acre development that will contain about 7,250 new houses.
	The route management study, which has been recently published by the Highways Agency, has acknowledged that the junction must be improved. Dartford borough council and Kent county council have also recognised the importance of this work. However, despite this there is little prospect of the necessary funding being forthcoming in the next few years.
	Another factor is pressure on school places. There is a desperate need for the expansion of secondary school places in Dartford. Currently, there is no wide ability county boys' school for children living in most of the north, west and east of Dartford. Many 11-year-olds are now faced with a half-hour train journey just to get to school, which I believe is not acceptable. Kent LEA is proposing to increase the number of secondary places in the area over the next few years but it has no plans to build a new county boys' school in Dartford, where the need is greatest.
	What about higher education? The Government's original planning guidance for Kent ThamesideRPG9awhich was published in 1994, highlighted the importance of creating a higher education facility in Kent Thameside as a means of raising the skills profile of the area and helping to encourage the growth of spin-off companies requiring higher levels of skill in north Kent. RPG9a envisaged the development of a 5,000-student campus and also a London science park, supported by GlaxoSmithKline, the borough council and the university of Greenwich. However, neither of these projects came to fruition. In fact, the university of Greenwich has now closed its remaining Dartford campus. North West Kent college is now the only post-18 education provider in Kent Thameside.
	The Government's recent skills audit report found that the number of people with skills in the Thames gateway is 20 per cent. below the national average. It warned that unless the problem was addressed, businesses could be forced to move elsewhere. The report says that 112,000 of the 194,000 new jobs that will be created by 2016 in Thames gateway will need applicants with A-level and degree level qualifications. Compared with the rest of London and other parts of the UK, Thames gateway has a significant skills gap, particularly among local residents.
	At present, most Kent Thameside residents with higher skills are forced to commute to London. Almost 100,000that is, 12 per cent. of the Kent and Medway work forcecommute to London. The percentage is as high as 38 for those who commute from Dartford. About 15,900 people commute from Dartford to London. We need to reverse this trend if Kent Thameside is to be genuinely sustainable.
	We must give urgent consideration to the rebuilding of Greenhithe and Dartford stations to increase capacity. Furthermore, the damaging proposals of the Strategic Rail Authority to reduce service levels at the Greenhithe, Stone crossing and Swanscombe must be rejected and reversed. The existing Kent line is already running well over capacity and the plans that have been put forward, when the CTRL phase 2 is open, are significantly to cut back services on the north Kent line. That will have a damaging effect on my local area and it is something that must be examined carefully.
	Greenhithe station is at the heart of Kent Thameside and passenger levels at this station are projected to rise considerably in the next five to 10 years, as the housing developments at Ingress Park900 homesEastern Quarry7,250 homesStone Castle500 homesand Greenhithe waterfront950 homesget underway and are completed.
	Dartford station, despite being the busiest station in north Kent, is housed in a 40-year-old building and does not have the platform capacity to meet the level of services that use it at present, let alone in the future. Consideration must be given to increasing the capacity at London Bridge and renewing the north Kent network's antiquated signalling system. It is woefully inadequate to meet future needs. It currently takes between 45 and 55 minutes for trains to travel to London from Dartford owing to the inadequacies of the current network. This must be put right.
	I asked the mayor of Swanscombe and Greenhithe town council, Councillor Brian Fitzpatrick, who is a senior traffic engineer, to give his thoughts on how he thought the new development would affect the areas of Swanscombe and Greenhithe. He certainly came up with some interesting ideas. He stated that a lack of attention to detail and to local knowledge pervades many of the applications submitted for planning at the moment. Knowledge of the existing situation and the needs and aspirations of the in situ community must be a firm component of all applications, but at the moment it is not given adequate consideration. He believes that true integration can be achieved only if we address fully the needs and wishes of the existing settled community with the needs of an incoming community.
	The good news is that Brian Fitzpatrick accepts that there are good and sensible reasons why there should be new communities in Kent Thameside, but unless we get the planning issues right we will come unstuck. That will cause divisions in the local community rather than encouraging integration, which is what we so desperately need.

Richard Ottaway: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. He is talking about many contemporary problems. He knows, however, that the gateway is for the future. Does he support the gateway proposals, and will they resolve some of the issues that he is raising?

Howard Stoate: That is an extremely good question. The answer is that I entirely support the gateway proposals, but they will work only if we pay particular attention to the issues that I am raising, which I am sure that other hon. Members will raise. I see that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is nodding. I am sure that he agrees.
	Kent Thameside and the Thames gateway development is a marvellous opportunity to regenerate the whole of the south-east, but it will work only if we get the infrastructure right before we go ahead with the development. The greatest mistake that we could make would be to press on with development with already overstretched existing capacity, which in many areas is already at breaking point. That would lead to more damage. There are huge opportunities that can be realised if only we get the development right. It is all a matter of attention to detail. The people of Dartford are behind the development, but whenever I talk to them on the doorstep they say that that is provided we can improve the road network, provided that we can improve the rail network, provided that we can get enough school places for our youngsters, and provided that we have enough health care facilities to meet the needs of the future. We are all in agreement, but the development must be done in the right way.
	The people of Swanscombe and Greenhithe want careful co-ordination of what is proposed for the future with what we have now. Again, if we get that right, they will be totally on side with this type of development. The point made by Councillor Fitzpatrick is that no one from Swanscombe and Greenhithe is on the delivery board. No one from the town council in Swanscombe is able to participate in these planning issues. Councillor Fitzpatrick thinks that that is also a mistake. The people of Swanscombe and Greenhithe are asking that it is ensured that there is integration with existing and planned new communities and also that Swanscombe and Greenhithe residents are not disadvantaged by the scale and pace of developments surrounding them.
	These people are asking for a few quite simple things. They want the inclusion of the local community in discussions about the size, location and required infrastructure of the planned development. They are asking that more resources be given to Dartford borough council to enable it better to represent its residents. They are asking also for another look at the Kent traffic model to ensure that it is run more often and kept up to date with existing traffic movements. Further, they are asking for targets for air quality that are enforceable to ensure that we do not damage our environment. In addition, they are asking for a close look at the numbers and situations of new developments to ensure that they are sustainable in terms of bus transport and air quality. I do not think that these requests are unreasonable.
	If we get these things right, we will all be happy with what we see. If we get them wrong, we will live to regret that. I believe that by proper attention to detail, proper integration of what local people want and proper working with local councils and development boards, we can achieve the aim of us all, which is a bright future that includes the regeneration of old worked-out sites. That is a proud future for the whole of the Thames gateway area.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has done the House a service. He has made the yes but speech. When we listened to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and the Minister, there was a danger that we were getting consensus and hearing that everything was all right. That was particularly so when the Minister was sketching the Nirvana that was growing up in the east of London. I almost felt that the House was going to sing Jerusalem, given the way in which the Minister was lauding the progress and the prospects.
	That is not to say that the Minister was not right to say that there were some exciting opportunities. The hon. Member for Dartford was right to mention the excitement around the east of London and in the various communities in Kent and Essex. There are real prospects for solving some long-term problems, such as unemployment or the need for economic regeneration and affordable housing. Many potential prizes are there to be gained, but it is the House's job and duty to question Ministers to ensure that they are getting it right. Otherwise, the opportunity could be wasted and there are already a number of signs that the Government have not learned the lessons from the past and are not listening carefully enough to those who will be affected. When the Minister for Transport replies to the debate, I hope that he will answer some of the questions that will be posed.
	Regeneration on this sort of scale can present real problems. We saw with the new towns of the past that much hope and excitement was generated by the prospect of new projects, but the optimistic scenario was frequently not fulfilled. Three-quarters of the English new towns are among the most deprived 50 per cent. of local authorities. All but two are more deprived than the counties in which they reside. Many of them never grew as planned. Skelmersdale was supposed to have a population of 80,000 but never made it beyond 40,000; Corby was planned for 100,000 but never made it beyond 50,000. Much of the hope in those new projects was never delivered, and I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that the Government have learned from problems of the past when expectations were raised but never met.
	There are many and huge difficulties in building the Thames gateway. I shall deal with the problem of flood plains in more detail later. Contaminated land is another problem, which makes the project quite expensive. The lack of transport infrastructure for the initial stages is another difficulty. There will be real problems; it will not be easy, and the Government should recognise that. The vision and planning will have to be that much more effective. I want to ask several specific questions about the problems. Some may arise because we are at the initial stages of the process and others because Government Departments are making mistakes, but the House must have some of these points answered.
	The first problem that emerges from reading some of the background documents is the number of organisations involved. The Minister responsible for the Thames gateway said that his second principle was to have a partnership approach, but can we have a response in tonight's reply or a written response at a later date, setting out the full list of organisations involved? We need to know the number of quangos, the number of Government Departments, the number of all other public sector bodies and public-private partnerships involved. I have to say that it gets pretty complicated when one tries to work out who is doing what, who is leading the project and who is accountable for what. We need accountability because huge amounts of money are being spent.
	I do not know whether the Minister has seen September's Regeneration and Renewal, which includes a wonderful map of all the organisations involved. The Minister puts his eye to the ceiling at the sight of it. Eighteen local authorities are listed in the web, followed by a wonderful list of bodies, including the Thames estuary partnership, English Partnerships, the Environment Agency, the sustainable communities taskforce, English Heritage, Transport for London, East of England Development Agency, South East of England Development Agency, the Greater London Authority, London Development Agency, Thames gateway London partnership, green giro network, architecture and urbanism unit, Thurrock UDC, London Thames gateway UDC, heart of Thames gateway, Thames gateway South Essex, Thames gateway Kent partnership, Kent county council, British Waterways, London First, Gateway to London, Invest Thames Gateway, Thames Gateway strategic executiveand no doubt many others. I have not finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that I have made my point.

Richard Ottaway: To return to my earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), the corporation will cover all of this within one overall body. The great success of Lord Heseltine's docklands was the establishment of the London Docklands development corporation. Does that not provide a sensible solution to the hon. Gentleman's problem, meeting the point that he is putting to us?

Edward Davey: I am not sure that that corporation was the great achievement that the hon. Gentleman assumes. There were many problems with the experience, particularly when local communities were not consulted and their interests were overridden. Some of the development was not as sustainable as we want to see for the Thames gateway. I am not in favour of having one all-embracing body. It is important to ensure that accountability structures are in place.
	As the Minister knows, we debated these issues in connection with statutory instruments for setting up the Thurrock urban development corporation. The Liberal Democrats were concerned with the lack of accountability in the structure. I should addthe hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) may want to join the debate on this pointthat party control of Thurrock council changed recently. However, after the change, the Labour councillors appointed to the UDC did not change. The newly elected Conservative councillors did not assume the local authority places on the board. That is why we raised questions of accountability when we debated the statutory instrument, but that point did not come out. We were given assurances that the UDCs would be more accountable, but that does not appear to have happened when the recently elected councillors failed to take up their places.
	Accountability issues are important, but from the map of the conglomeration of quangos and other bodies such as public-private partnerships that I read out, it is clear that accountability has not been created. On the contrary, it has created confusion and Ministers must explain how that confusion will be cleared up. We have heard about directorates on the Thames gateway within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; we have heard about a Cabinet Committee; we have heard about a new officeuntil hearing the Minister's speech, I knew nothing about itbeing launched somewhere in the Thames gateway earlier last week. It is just not clear exactly who is in control and where the lines of accountability lie. I hope that the Minister will clarify that for the House[Interruption.]
	Ministers on the Treasury Bench may complain among themselves about what I am saying, but I am not the only one saying it. Many other people working in the Thames gateway area are also complaining. Let me provide some quotes to illustrate the point. Sandra Hunt, the director of the Thames gateway-based consultancy, Regenfirst, said:
	There are basically too many players.
	Glyn Roberts, the spokesperson for the Royal Town Planning Institute regeneration panel, said:
	The Government's going out of its way to try to get everybody on board . . . and I think it's going too far.
	Others make the very same point. To be fair, some believe that the Government are getting it right in some parts of the Thames gateway. The leader of Medway council in Kent

Khalid Mahmood: Rodney.

Edward Davey: Yes, Rodney ChambersRod to his mates, presumablybelieved that in his area the Government were following a democratic model and he was pleasantly surprised that the local authority was given the powers to go ahead and deliver it, with accountability to the people. That is the sort of model that many in the House would prefer. I hope that Ministers can get through this alphabet soup that the Government have created in the Thames gateway and that there will be clearer lines of accountability and fewer organisations in respect of this important project.
	Related to the number of organisations is the cost. A plethora of bodies means a plethora of chief executives and a whole range of people wanting jobs and coming in with their different lackeys. The Government talk positively about the Thurrock urban development corporation, but it has a chief executive, director of resources, director of planning and strategy, director of delivery and director of marketing and communications. How many similar sorts of positions will apply to the partnerships that I listed with concerns in the Thames gateway? When he replies to the debate, can the Minister for Transport tell us how many chief executives there will be in all the bodies dealing with the Thames gateway? If not, will he write to us with the answer and include information on the collective salary involved?

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of ruining a good point about the plethora of organisations. It is important that we have posts for the Thurrock urban development corporation, which is the rocket motor for that area's regeneration. We want the positions appointed and under way. The hon. Gentleman should not knock that aspect, but otherwise, he makes a valid point about the plethora of quangos and other organisations and the bewilderment that comes from it.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to pull me up on that. I am not saying that those posts are the wrong ones for that particular organisation. The point is that if they are mirrored in all the organisations I have listed, huge amounts of money will be spent paying the same people to do the same things in the same area. That is both bewildering and a total waste of money. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on the costs of those organisations. How many heads of marketing will there be for the Thames gateway? We need to know.
	Transport is the other issue that has come up, and the Minister who will reply to the debate at least has some responsibility for that. It seems to most people that transport is the absolute key. If the state sector can do anything to unlock the potential in the east of London, it has to be in its provision of a public transport network. I am sure that the Government will say they are doing an awful lot, talking about everything from the extension of the Docklands light railway to the east London line extension to the plans for Crossrail and so on. At the moment, though, none of us is clear whether some of the bigger projects are actually going to happen. There is lots of talk about them, but when the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on Crossrail, there was not a clear commitment on the cash that would enable us to know that it will happen.
	I say that not as a party political point but to ask what the best use of public money is. Spending on public transport infrastructure is probably the most effective use of public money to unlock potential. If a lot of money was channelled that way, we could save a great deal on other aspects of the projects. Will the Minister say a little about the key role for transport?
	One project on the drawing board and ready to go could improve some road links in the south of Essex and create jobs, and that is the Shell Haven port and distribution park development. The planning application has been on Ministers' desks for some time. Because of the sensitivity of the proposal, the Minister may not wish to comment directly, and nor do I expect him to, but a lot of people across the House support that application and look to the Government to give it the go-ahead. To those of us who have had even limited involvement, it seems to have dealt sensitively with the community environmental issues, and it promises a huge amount for early delivery on jobs, economic regeneration and transport links.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I contributed at the public inquiry on Shell Haven port, both at the start and the end, giving more than 25 pages of evidence. The port will bring real benefits to south Essex, but there are also a number of serious disadvantages, and it will certainly bring no benefit whatever to Castle Point, unless Canvey is put in so that we have access to those jobs.

Edward Davey: I am sure that Ministers will have heard that, but my point is that there is huge support for the proposal. If Ministers can give an early and positive reply, it would be welcome.
	Let me turn to the environmental challenges in the gateway and how the Government are responding to them. The Government are right to focus their attention on the gateway because brownfield developments there could ensure that land is successfully reused. They also have to ratchet up construction standards so that materials are used in a sustainable way and to make sure that the buildings are designed so that they are efficient in terms of energy use, water use and all the other things coming from advisory groups.
	There is continuing concern about the flood plain and about how the Government are tackling that issue. I have asked questions about this, particularly in trying to get information about the maps. I was told in an answer on 20 May 2004 that maps are provided to local planning authorities every three months and updated as new information comes on board. The Minister said that there is a lot of certainty and stability, but in fact there are many changes in the analysis of the flood plain in the Thames gateway. This is not a minor point; some 11 of the 14 designated growth areas in the Thames gateway are in the flood plain. It is pretty essential that we get this right. I hope that the Minister is right, and I know that the Department and others are spending a lot of time on the matter. He has given assurances that none of the developments will go ahead unless and until there has been a flood risk assessment.

Keith Hill: May I dispel the possibility of scaremongering on flooding and the flood plain? The fact is that something in the order of 17 London boroughs lie within the flood plain. Some 85 billion of property assets are located within the flood plain, but it is protected. Provided the flood plain is protected, which is the Government's commitment, practice and intention, there is not a significant problem. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to conjure the expression flood plain out of the firmament and imagine that that is in itself a threat. It is not, and he is doing wrong in even ventilating the possibility of a threat arising from the existing flood plain in its own right.

Edward Davey: That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister, containing the idea that Members of Parliament should not ask questions about some of the key risks. It is not just hon. Members who are doing so. Peter Dower, chair of the Association of British Insurers Thames gateway working group, said in a press release issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:
	Insurers remain committed to offering as wide a range of insurance solutions as possible to home-owners and businesses. As the increasing demand for new homes will inevitably involve some developments in areas of higher flood risk, it is important that flood risk management is designed into these developments to maintain insurability.
	His colleague, the policy officer Sebastian Catovsky, quoted recently in Regeneration and Renewal said:
	Big development sites such as Barking Reach, Thamesmead, Greenwich peninsula are all very low-lying and, even if well protected, could have problems.
	I am quoting insurance professionals who will have to provide policies for those homes. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that they have a vested interest, and that may well be so, but it is for this House to ask Ministers questions to make sure that the work is being done.
	I am more than happy to accept the Government's and the Minister's assurances, but I must ask a further question. The Minister will know that the Thames barrage will need to be updated by 2030, and he may have the exact date in his brief. That updating may even require a completely new barrage to be built, according to some analysts. That would be an important investment. We are talking about 4 billion or 5 billion, and the project will be critical to many of the developments that we are talking about tonight. I am not making this point to scaremonger or to try to suggest that it will blow away all the potential. I hope that the problems, issues and risks can be managed properly so that we can develop brownfield land. It is in the interests of everybody, including my constituents, that we do that. We must be reassured by Ministers, however, that serious risks are being properly considered.
	I want to raise a few more specific issues to ask whether the Government have thought about them in their overall strategy, particularly relating to the people who will live in the homes in the Thames gateway. One thing that concerned me about the Barker report was that it was very much a top-down analysis of housing demand. It did not analyse the types of people concernedthe age groups or the family distribution and organisation involved, such as one-parent families or families with two or three childrenand therefore did not analyse the type of homes that will be needed. Can the Minister assure us that the demographic needs are being considered in the plans being developed? For example, will there be any developments for older, retired people in the Thames gateway?
	We have heard about other aspects of the infrastructure such as health, education and transport. Are there any proposals for prisons, for example? From the Minister's reaction, he does not appear to think so, but all such aspects need to be considered.
	Some transport issues, especially the river crossings, do not appear to be linked to the environmental and public transport needs of the communities. For example, a huge debate has arisen over the Thames gateway bridge. It clearly has to have a road link, but will the bridge also be able to take trams or pedestrians? What are the plans for guaranteed bus lanes? If we could have some assurances on those aspects of the bridge, many people would have their fears assuaged.
	As other colleagues have mentioned, the developments are a real opportunity. We hope that the Government will get it right and we want to help them to do so. I hope that Ministers will take my remarks in that light.

Linda Perham: In congratulating the Government on their vision for the Thames gateway, I wish first to focus on the meaning of Thames gateway regeneration for the London borough of Redbridge, which lies along on the border of London and Essex, and the importance of local authorities in providing leadership when building tomorrow's communities.
	To many people outside Redbridge, the borough is a leafy suburb of London. To some in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, Redbridge is known only as the place you park your car when you go to London. However, our borough contains a diversity of urban, suburban and rural communities, a diversity of faiths and races, and also some of the richest and poorest areas of the country.
	Redbridge has seen enormous changes in the past decade. Some two and a half years ago, the local council launched an ambitious vision for the future of Ilford, Progressive Ilford, to fulfil local demand for homes, jobs and services for a generation. I worked out that when it was completed I would be 85, so I hope to be still around when it all comes to fruition. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, in his previous capacity as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, was able to attend that event with me. However, the launch of that regeneration plan coincided with a change of political control in Redbridge, which has led to a disturbing shift in the council's regeneration priorities.
	The first apparent shift by the new Tory council was to deprioritise public consultation. Dialogue with the public did take place, but it rarely did so in a form that gave consultees the impression their concerns had been heeded. I should like to take the Gants Hill area as an example. Gants Hill is situated on the border between my constituency and Ilford, South at the heart of Redbridge. It has a Central line tube station; a crossing of the A12, the Woodford avenue, which links to the north circular road; and Cranbrook road, a major local route.
	Gants Hill has been in need of regeneration since the late 1960s. However, for two years, the Tory council tried to force through a plan that would have flattened dozens of homes to make way for a supermarket, despite four other supermarkets being within a mile of the site, and in the face of massive public opposition. The council also proposed to close the much loved and architecturally significant Gants Hill library, regardless once again of public opposition and the desperate need in the area for better community facilities. The library and its car park have been designated by the council for commercial or leisure use.
	In the last four years, Gants Hill residents association has complained to me about the neglect of the Woodford avenue area. Mustafa Redif, the manager of Serene's fish and chip shop on the Woodford avenue, told me recently that he felt that his corner of Gants Hill had been overlooked when it came to regenerationa view shared by other residents in Gants Hill's forgotten quarters. [Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friends are thinking of other forgotten quarters in their constituencies, especially if they have Conservative councils.
	Perhaps our most well known landmark was the Odeon cinema on the A12 at Gants Hill. It has now been demolished for the construction of over 200 high-rise flats, which has taken from our community part of its identity and fuelled the demonisation of young people who have little to do in the area. A similar story is told by residents of Barkingside, who are threatened with the loss of Fullwell Cross library, which serves as a cultural landmark in the community, to be replaced with blocks of flats.
	Those travesties of regeneration stem from a difference in principle. When under Labour control, Redbridge's plans for the future were based on the needs of local people, but now, young people in my constituency are priced out of the local housing market, forcing them out of the communities in which they grew up. Everyone can see the slow erosion of community life in our area, but still the Tories fight tooth and nail to minimise any allocations for affordable housing on major developments,
	As populations grow, there is increasing need for community centres, libraries, youth clubs and other facilities, but the Tories' regeneration plans have lost coherence. The attitude of the Tory council has led to a general and understandable public distrust of regeneration, which undermines the potential benefits.
	The next decision the council has to make, a week today, is whether to allow a horse racing track, which is bitterly opposed by hundreds of local residentsincluding mewith a grandstand, bars and restaurants to be built on green belt land on Fairlop plain in my constituency. I am urging local Tory councillors to listen to the voices of the people whom we represent.
	I also wish to raise the issue of Crossrail, because I have the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the issue, which counts 100 MPs and peers as members. In the spring we hope to see a hybrid Bill before Parliament to empower the financing and construction of Crossrail. I cannot overstate how important it is for us to take the opportunity to make the fullest success of Crossrail to contribute to regeneration in the Thames gateway.
	The plans for the gateway could realise up to 30 per cent. of London's required new homes, including provision for affordable housing, which is very important to my constituents, and the creation of job opportunities. That will help London to accommodate the predicted increase in population of 700,000 people over the next 10 years, without encroaching on greenfield sites or the green belt. The Thames Gateway London Partnership has highlighted the insufficiency of rail networks and interchanges connecting key town centres and development sites. As with other areas of London, Crossrail will provide rapid, frequent and convenient access for business and leisure travellers from the Thames gateway areas to the City, central London and Heathrow.
	Crossrail will provide a freedom of movement for people that will give businesses greater access to the labour force; it will give people the opportunity to look further afield for jobs that will recognise and develop their potential; and it will ensure hundreds of thousands of people will be able to get to and from work each day and enjoy the capital's leisure opportunities by night. In that latter group, I include my daughters, who are in their 20s. In fact, to me, Crossrail represents opportunity for my constituents, for Londoners and for much of the south-east. It will also play an essential role in securing London's future as a financial and international business centre vital to the UK economy and with benefits for the whole country. For residents in my constituency, it will mean a practical alternative to being crammed into overcrowded carriages on the Central line, which operates at capacity no longer just during rush hour but throughout the day and evening.
	East London contains some of the poorest communities in Britain, yet a lack of infrastructure inhibits opportunity for the people living in those communities. I have lived in the east of London for almost all my life and I feel very strongly that the time has come for my birthplace, my living space and the people I represent to benefit from this Labour Government's commitment to this huge investment in the Thames gateway programme.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). She spoke eloquently, and made a number of important and good points about her constituency. I am deeply proud of my constituency, as she is of hers. Castle Point is a wonderful and beautiful town, which nestles seductively on the Thames estuary. It boasts the wonderful and historic Hadleigh castle, St. James's church in Hadleigh, St. Peter's church in Thundersley and Benfleet church, which was built on the site of the battle of Benfleet, in which we defeated the Vikings about 1,110 years ago. On Canvey Island we also have the Dutch cottages, and a wonderful, tight-knit and caring community.
	The Thames gateway project can do much for my constituency; it offers much promise. However, like the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I am concerned to get the detail right, particularly on infrastructure. If we do not get that right, the Thames gateway could be a burden on my constituents. The gateway will bring regeneration and jobs, although as I have said before and will continue to say until the House is sick of my saying it and delivers Canvey's third road, without that third road there will be no jobs in Castle Point from the Thames gateway. However, the gateway could deliver jobs.
	I am delighted with the Olympic bid, which involves the gateway area. Winning that bid would be a great thing for this country. I cannot understand why the whole country is not backing that bid and Lord Coe, who is pushing it. It could deliver much for south Essex and my constituency. There are many new opportunities to come from the Thames gateway project: in leisure, in sport, through protecting and enhancing our heritage, through jobs and improved housing, and, as the hon. Member for Ilford, North said, through more social and cheaper housing so that our young people can get on the housing ladder and we can house teachers, nurses and people in low-paid occupations.
	The Thames gateway could enhance my constituents' lifestyle and quality of life in many ways. The Minister for Housing and Planning, who has just left, is an excellent man, as is the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has taken over. I am sure that he will pick up some of these points when he sums up. However, the Ministers have a very tough job in selling the gateway to my constituents. Local people and the local press do not simply accept without question the soft soap and the hard sell on the number of houses, which is the nub of the matter for us.
	We need some additional housing, but the question is where it should go. Should it be on the green belt? My constituents feel that it should not. How many houses should we have? My constituents feel that 4,000 additional houses, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to foist on us, represent a totally unsustainable level, which could not possibly be built without consuming parts of the green belt in my constituency.
	My constituents also feeland this is one of the key differences between the Conservatives' and the Government's policy on planningthat the best people to make decisions on numbers of houses, where they go and on green belt protection are local people, who are democratically accountable to their community. They know best. My constituents are completely bewilderedthat seems to be the word of the nightthat the decisions are taken away from them and given to what I suppose is a quango. Certainly, my constituents do not know who the people in Go East and the regional planning authority are, and they cannot vote them out if they disagree with their decisions. Such people simply seem to be placemenyes menintended to deliver whatever number the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister comes up with and seeks to force on us.
	We do not accept the claim made by the Minister for Housing and Planning in his opening remarks that housing growth at levels that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seeks to force on the south-east is inevitablethat was the word that he used. There is no inevitability about it at all. There is regeneration in the north of England, and some communities there want more housing. Our communities do not. We should trust those local communities.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman recall one important point that the Minister made? The vast majority of the new homes will be built for the indigenous population: the sons, the daughters, the grandmas and grandfathers of the indigenous people living in those communities already.

Bob Spink: If only that were so; it simply is not so. There is an assumption that there will be a major influx of population into the south-east, at a time when the north is starting to regenerate and great cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle are striving forward. Why should we seek to take their people away from them?

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend recommend the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)? That makes it clear that the principal pressure on housing demand does not come from within communities but from all kinds of other factors such as migration from the north of England and other demand-side factors.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
	I move from housing to a headline that I doubt anyone here will have seen. It says Not a single penny, and refers to the 23 million regeneration handout from the Thames gateway project in south Essex this week. Many people benefited from that; we have already heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) got some work done on his local windmill. Basildon benefited and Southend benefited. There are many projects that benefited. I am sure that Thurrock benefited, because the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is so assiduous that he would have made sure of that. Sadly, Castle Point did not get a penny of that money.
	Indeed, Mary Spence, the chief executive, is quoted in the same local paperthe Evening Echo of 10 Novemberas saying:
	This additional money has got to be spent by March 31 next year and there just aren't any projects in Castle Point which are suitable.
	I think that I have already mentioned one or two.
	I find the offer of the money a little offensiveanalogous to someone throwing coloured beads at the natives while stealing their land, in the hope of making them compliant. We are given 23 million for a bit of a windmill improvement here and a little project there, and we are all supposed to say, Thank you so much, tug our forelocks and go home happy that the Thames gateway is fantastic, and doing good things locally. That is what the 23 million is intended for.
	Yet at the same time people are trying to force 123,000 houses on south Essexon the south-eastwhich is totally unsustainable. Some of those houses will have to go on the green belt.

Tony McNulty: rose

Bob Spink: As the Minister wants to intervene, will he confirm that to get 4,000 extra houses in Castle Point, some green belt will have to be released?

Tony McNulty: I intervene only to point out that the hon. Gentleman cannot say that the figure will be 125,000 for south Essex and then in the next breath say that it will be the south-east. Which is it? Is he suggesting that there will be 125,000 houses for south Essex or for the south-east? We have to be careful about these figures. In fact, as I understand it, the figure for Castle Point is 2,500, not 4,000.

Bob Spink: I accept the Minister's correction. I meant to say the south-east, not south Essex, so I apologise to the House for that. I tried to correct myself immediately, as the record will show, but the Minister made two errors. First, he said 125,000, whereas I said 123,000; and secondly, he said that there would not be 4,000 additional houses for Castle Point. If not, will he confirm that the lower figure will be the one imposed on Castle Point, because we would love that? I am sorry to have to say that my understanding is that it will be the higher figure4,000for Castle Point.
	On housing, the gateway is a Trojan horse. It brings a massive increase in building but offers no improvement in infrastructure. Canvey Island really needs new access, but there will be none. The East of England Development Agency will be spending a few million pounds on developing new industrial sites in a new industrial park on Canvey Island, yet there are empty sites all over the island. If only that money were spent on a road, we would not have to spend any more money on developing industrial sites on Canvey Island. The private sector would take over and do it for us; the development would be organic, driven by people. What we need on Canvey Island is an additional access roadnothing less. We need no further development at all until we have that infrastructure.
	Our roads are already overburdened with congestion, yet there are plans to build in the green belt, which would feed on to the A13 in Hadleigh and Thundersley, yet there is no means of improving the road in those areas. It goes through a densely built-up area, so there is no solution for the already wholly unacceptable congestion, yet only two weeks ago a proposal was made to build 310 more houses in that green belt. My constituents are full up with housing and fed up with congestion. In fact, one of them, Eric Fenwick, rang me this morning to say, Dr. Spink, when you're writing your election address, use the slogan, 'Full up and fed up' because that describes how the residents of Castle Point feel.
	Our public services are tremendously overstretched. Our schools are full. Our hospitals still have massive waiting lists. Our doctors' surgeries are full. People cannot book into a dentist locally. We do not have sufficient leisure and sporting facilities locally. Our kids have nothing to do, so they hang about on the streets, sometimesnot alwaysmaking a nuisance of themselves, although I stress that Castle Point kids are basically fantastic and deserve more facilities from us. We should not be dragging in more kids, without such facilities. I hope the Government are taking note and that the Minister will receive a note from his officials about the 4,000 houses in Castle Point and give us the very good news that he has decided to reduce that number. Does he accept that a major new development of hundreds of houses feeding on to already congested roads is nonsense, and will he pull that development, because of the highways issues, pending improvements to the infrastructure?
	The Thames estuary has internationally important wildlife sites, not least in and around Castle Point, which include a vast area of the Thames, going past Southend, West as far as Rochford and Southend, East. I do not get many votes in the wildlife areas of my constituency, but they are important and I treasure them and want to protect them. Such sites are especially important for birds and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has carefully and wisely lobbied for their protection.
	We need to enhance our existing nature reserves, but we also need to ensure that the, sometimes conflicting, leisure uses of the Thames are also enhanced, developed and protected. People and their leisure activities are just as important as wildlife. We have to balance those two conflicting aims and I hope that the Minister will be able to do so.
	We need to ensure that the new flood storage does not damage wildlife sites. The overreaction of the Minister for Housing and Planning whenever the flood plain was mentioned frightened me to death. What is in his mind? What caused him to overreact in that, shall I say, bewildering manner? Perhaps we will find out.
	We need to minimise the production of waste in the area and to find better and more sustainable ways of dealing with it. Waste management is a major issue, especially at the Pitsea tip, and questions about incineration in Essex keep raising their heads.
	If we get the infrastructure issues right, the Thames gateway could be of great benefit for the people of the south-east and, indeed, south Essex.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Environment Agency is about to publish flood plain maps which will give a much more accurate idea of the precise boundaries of flooding, according to certain risks. The Minister referred to one in 1,000, but it is no good if that one in a 1,000 years happens to be when one's house is being builtbut that is another matter. Could it be that the Minister is sensitive about those maps because he will have much greater difficulty finding spaces for those houses than he originally thought?

Bob Spink: I think my hon. Friend may be on to something. The one in 1,000 design standard may have been consistent with conditions 10 or 20 years ago, but recently we have seen massive climate change and all the models have been rapidly adjusted. I am pretty sure that the one in 1,000 standard no longer applies for the Thames estuary. The Government were wrong to abolish the Essex flood defence committee and I am grateful to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for confirming that they will reinstate the committee when we win the next election. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) reminded me about making those points.
	I do not want to be a dismal Jimmy, however. I do not want to suggest that the Thames gateway is all badit is not. It offers much promise, but to secure that promise we need to get the infrastructure in and reduce the number of houses being forced on us by the Government, which will destroy our green belt.

Andrew MacKinlay: This is both an interesting and rather unusual debate, because there has been less of the party politics and synthetic anger that are a feature of the Chamber and that diminish its effectiveness. Members on both sides of the House have made points of great validity, and it would be prudent for the Government to reflect on them.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned the plethora of organisations involved in the Thames gateway. People in public life and potential developers are bewildered and cannot understand who is responsible for what, so it would be sensible for the Government to take that on board.
	We must address some of the points made by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). I hope I do them no injustice nor cause them embarrassment when I say that they broadly supported the thrust of the Government's strategy of regenerating the part of England that we are discussing.
	There has been criticism of the bodies involved. Large parts of the Thames gateway strategy are not included in urban development corporationsI am fortunate in that one is dedicated to Thurrock. The Thames gateway is not in one English region, which is a mistake. Thurrock is in the eastern region, but we have no relationship with a region that is largely run from Cambridge and goes right up to Norfolk and Norwich. The maps of the English regions are wholly artificial. I remember that, when the London Government Act 1963 was passed, the boundaries of Greater London were fixed at 2 o'clock in the morning during a debate in Committee in the House of Lords, almost by accident, depending on who could be present at the time.
	Things have moved on. I would liken the shape of the Thames gateway to an Osram light bulb laying on its side: it includes not only Greater London, as we know it, but goes down both sides of the Thames. That is the reality of the London region. People commute into London; Londoners have moved eastwards; and the region includes London's river and London's motorway, albeit largely outside the Greater London authority's area. Those issues need to be addressed if we are to manage the areaLondon, the Thames and its gatewayin the long term, and in my view it should come under just one English region, which would have some coherence.
	We are now presented with an exciting opportunity not only to create new homes and environments, but to do away with some of the derelict, contaminated land throughout the area. My constituency contains a large amount of brown, derelict land that has been exploited during the past century without restoration. That land can now be restored and commerce and residences built, contributing not only to the economy but to the good quality of life of the people who live to the east of London. So I am excited by those possibilities and the new opportunities for innovative design in the building and urban planning there.
	I very much welcome the moneys that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made available to the Thurrock development corporationsome 330-odd millionand I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will use his good offices to ensure that the other public sector partners, Ministries, Departments and agencies redirect their spending programmes to the Thurrock development corporation as well as the development corporation that covers the London boroughs and throughout the Thames corridor.
	There is an anomaly, in respect of which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised legitimate concerns, because the absence of an urban development corporation will disadvantage his area. The beauty of the urban development corporation is that it allows true planning to take place. It not only deals with residential development, but ensures that the transport infrastructure, schools and national health service provision grow and are paid for, while new, good quality environments and residential properties are created. Hitherto, that has not happened in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Castle Point.
	The vehicle for true comprehensive planning must be an urban development corporation. That was the thrust of what the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who is no longer in his place, was saying, and he was talking common sense when he referred to the experience of the London docklands 20 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and I agree that the responsibility for developing the docklands fell between a number of local authorities, all of which were well motivated, but there was no single body to drive through any plan. Only when such a single body was created did we see what we now know as the docklands. Of course, there might be some warts and deficiencies, but, overall, the docklands are a massive success commercially, environmentally and in terms of regeneration.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman argues for the UDC in his area by linking it with the docklands experience in London, but surely that UDC is more or less, if not totally, coterminous with a local authority. Is he not worried at all about the UDC's accountability?

Andrew MacKinlay: We must be sensitive about that. The local authority discharges a multiplicity of functions very well, but the essence of the urban development corporation is that it is focused on creating a new environment, attracting funds and marshalling funds and landit has one purposebut all that fails to happen when such things are vested with a local authority.
	The thrust of my speech is that all the areas that make up the Thames gateway should be covered by urban development corporations and that there needs to be some overall, strategic planning by one English region. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's valid point that an awful lot of other intermediate bodies could be either culled or rationalised, so I would not start from this point if I were the Minister, but the Government have made a very sensible start.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about Thurrock, of course I believe in local democracy, but, after all, the local authority will monitor the urban development corporation's work and it appoints some representatives. That is not a matter for meI took the point that he made earlierand I am fairly comfortable with the new arrangements. In any event, I also recognise that the urban development corporation can badger other departments in a way that local authorities cannot. For example, I regret to say that Thurrock has some of the lowest general practitioner provision in England, not just in the region. I told Health Ministers in the Chamber a few weeks agoI do so again to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench nowthat they and the urban development corporation must get those other agencies to ensure not only the necessary GP provision to meet people's existing demands, but the necessary growth as the urban development corporation is extended and developed. That cannot be done adequately by a traditional local authority.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened because I want to take this opportunity to emphasise the deficiency in respect of GPs. I understand that, in England, the average is 52 GPs per 100,000 people. My borough, Thurrock, currently has 43 GPs per 100,000 people. Moreover, we have a large number of single practitioners, which is not the most efficient way to deliver health care. So there is much work to be done, and I hope that the Minister with responsibility for London will join me in taking an initiative to bring together the Department of Health, the primary care trust and other agencies to discover whether we can address those deficiencies, perhaps by channelling some funds to put us on the starting grid by creating GP provision that is appropriate to our area.
	The Highways Agency must urgently address the lack of capacity at junction 30 of the M25 and on adjacent stretches of the A13. The problem must be dealt with in the interests not just of Thurrock but of the whole Thames gateway, because that junction and those stretches are increasingly becoming bottlenecks. In passing, may I therefore express my regret and frustration that, when there is a major hiatus on the M25, a statement is never made in the House of Commons? However, when there is a comparable hiatus on the rail network, a statement is made. That partly reflects the failure of Ministers to make a statement, but also the disinterest and wrong priorities of the press and media.
	Although it took place some distance from the Thames gateway over the weekend, a major incident on the M25 frustrated an awful lot of people in the region. A similar incident occurred near junction 30 a few months ago, and given the cost, losses and frustration caused to commerce and people travelling on the M25, we should consider big hold-ups and closures on the M25 much more seriously than we do at present. That raises the question of whether we should have a dedicated traffic police for the M25 rather than relying on the different constabularies of Kent, Essex and the Met, who do not communicate adequately with each other about the quadrants for which they have responsibility. I hope that such a suggestion will be taken on board.
	I know that colleagues might later refer to crossings over the Thames, but I must point out that I oppose the continued tolling of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge between Dartford and Thurrock. It was wrong to abrogate the statute of Parliament that said that tolling should cease once the bridge had been paid for. I resent that on behalf of my constituents in Thurrock and south Essex and of people in north Kent. The charges collected are not returned to our areas. The motorists who use the bridge to go from south Essex to work in Kent and vice versa have an additional 10 a week tax on them to pay for the wider highways network. That is simply not fair unless there is tolling around the whole M25 and elsewhere. This issue should be addressed with some urgency.
	Reference might be made later to the desire for a Thames bridge to the west of Thurrock. That is a prudent proposition, but I am surprised that the Government have not addressed the need for a crossing to the east of Thurrock. The QEII bridge and one that might be created in the London boroughs to the west would merely act as bottlenecks or funnels that would not meet the needs of the north of England or help with access to the channel ports. We need to examine a proposal for a further crossing to the east that could be situated either in the vicinity of my borough of Thurrock or in the area represented by the hon. Member for Castle Point.
	I remember attending a meeting with the hon. Gentleman soon after we were elected to the House at which it was made quite clear that if he wanted an additional access road to Canvey Island in his constituency, it would have to be part of a wider river crossing. I am not suggesting that the crossing should be sited there but, tantalisingly, he might consider the possibility that an additional road to Canvey Island should be incorporated in a highway across the Thames that gave access to the ports in Kent. Such a highway would be useful for the wider economy and our Thames gateway region.
	The need for c2c's London to Tilbury and Southend line to be upgraded with some dispatch is also a matter of urgency in south Essex. It was a run-down line and, to be fair, it has received considerable investment. However, it does not have sufficient capacity to meet the existing needs of the Thames gateway.
	The channel tunnel rail link goes under the Thames and, like a bootlace, comes out of the ground near the QEII bridge in my constituency. I think that we should revisit the prospect of having a station on that line in West Thurrock or Purfleet. I realise that there is the proposal for a station at Stratford, but it is common sense to examine the suggestion for a station in my constituency. A number of trains for Paris and Brussels could stop there each day, and that would also provide useful extra capacity for people in north Kent and my constituency who want to go to London.

John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important transport infrastructure link would be the extension of the docklands light railway out as far as Rainham? That would help my constituents, those in other parts of Greater London and his in Thurrock.

Andrew MacKinlay: There is a lot to be said for my hon. Friend's suggestion. I draw attention to the fact that he implicitly referred to the fact that the Greater London authority and the Mayor are the driving force for such a proposal. However, this issue is extraterritorial to my constituency; we are not in Greater London and I am not advocating that we necessarily should be in the GLA area. However, I am saying that the boundary of Greater London makes no sense. We should be included in the considerations for the extension of the docklands light railway.
	As well as capitalising on the new channel tunnel rail route that comes through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, we need to upgrade the c2c line and address the problems of the level crossings in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who shares my frustration at the number of crossings in our area. They cut off communities and create problems for emergency vehicles. That issue needs to be addressed urgently because if the decision goes in favour of the development of the port at Shell Haven, even greater burdens will be imposed on the limited resources of the c2c rail line. That will impose greater frustration on the residents who have to wait many minutes to get across the level crossings when they travel to East Tilbury and other areas along the line.
	My area also lacks an office market even though it has great potential. We have some of the lowest ratios of public sector jobs to employment in the entire country. If the Lyons review is to take civil servants out of Londonmy constituency is not in Londonit is sensible and reasonable for me to invite Her Majesty's Government to consider moving some civil service jobs from the centre of London and into south Essex, which, at the Government's choice, is part of the eastern region. That would help to encourage the growth of skills training and would be useful in dealing with the shortages of skills, which is one of the great problems faced in our project for the Thames gateway.
	It is intended that Thurrock's contribution towards meeting the housing needs of our part of England during the lifetime of the urban development corporation will be roughly 18,500 new houses. I remind my constituents who express concern about that that they must understand that we are talking about not only houses, but schools, hospital and general practitioner provision and transport links, as I have tried to describe in my speech. I also tell them that my right hon. Friend Minister for Housing and Planning has reassured me informally, as he did in the House today, that the whole strategy is especially geared towards bringing contaminated derelict land and brownfield land back into use, and that the Government stand by their commitment to the green belt.
	A private enterprise company that goes under the name of Thamesgate has produced an ambitious and innovative proposal, which will presumably become a planning application in several months. It proposes to develop some 18,000 houses in the vicinity of East Tilbury in my constituency. It has tried to sound out local politicians, members of the local authority and other people in public life, such as clergymen. We have made it clear that the green belt is precious and that we do not think that there is a case to build on it unless and until brownfield sites have been exhausted and contaminated land has been restored. That must be our message to the company.
	When the Minister makes his winding-up speech I hope that he will reaffirm the Government's commitment to safeguarding the green belt jealously, because that would give a great deal of reassurance to my constituents, especially those in East Tilbury. The proposal has caused them anxiety and they assume that it is a done deal to which politicians and the Government have agreed. There is in fact not even a planning application existing. A private enterprise company merely has a legitimate desire to find out whether it could float such a proposition.

John Hayes: I share the hon. Gentleman's passionately articulated desire to protect green space, especially his area's green belt. I reassure him that there is no likelihood that brownfield land will be exhausted. Brownfield land is a stream, not a reservoir, and as land use changes more brownfield development opportunities emerge. I am confident that when a Conservative Government are soon elected, we will be able to support the bold case that he makes on behalf of local people.

Andrew MacKinlay: My constituents certainly need new homes before there is next a Conservative Government. I am worried about the nice people who visit my surgery to express concern rightly about the housing needs of their sons and daughters. I sometimes ask them whether they bought their council houses, and many didgood luck to them, because if I had been a council tenant, I am sure that I would have bought my house too. Such people, however, must realise that we need a way of supplying additional housing units, especially those that may be rented or bought at low cost. Such houses do not fall like manna from heaven each night to appear on the grass each morning. We need to use our energies to find out how we can build houses at low cost to meet such demand, yet still protect and enhance our environment. Politicians and the public must address that challenge and be reminded of it.
	The impact on Thurrock of the reduction of housing stock due to council house sales is such that it is becoming more difficult to meet the housing needs of people on modest pay. Such housing provision must be available if we are to have the skills to achieve the wonderful project of regenerating the Thames gateway. I hope that the Minister will find a moment to reassure people throughout the region, and especially my constituents in East Tilbury who would be affected by the private company's proposal, that the Government stand by their commitment to protect and enhance the green belt.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and I shall make a few comments in that capacity.
	I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I agree with him passionately on two points and disagree with him passionately on one. He said that he wanted to move Thurrock into one regional area. Coming from Gloucestershire, which is on the edge of four regional areas, I have a huge amount of sympathy with him in that quest. Bearing in mind the Government's horrendous defeat in the north-east referendum, I hope that Ministers will reconsider their decision not to have new boundaries for regional areas, so that we can address some of the anomalies. The hon. Gentleman is the Member for Thurrock and I am not, but it seems to me that Thurrock fits better in the London region than it does in the eastern region, which I know quite a lot about.
	Thames gateway, which is the largest and most ambitious single regeneration project in this country, was launched with great fanfare by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February 2003. It is therefore appropriate to evaluate what progress has been made in the year and three quarters since then. The project is a huge opportunity, but it poses a huge danger as well if the Government do not think it through properly, because our great capital city could end up functioning less well than it does now. I want London to prosper as one of the world's great capitals. The Thames gateway project gives us an opportunity to achieve that, but it also poses considerable dangers.
	The point was made that London will grow by more than 700,000 people in the next 10 years. The gateway project will last for 13 years. One can assume that in the time in which it is to take place, London will have grown by almost 1 million people. The project envisages the building of 120,000 houses. That presages the possibility of at least 250,000 newly housed people. However, Transport for London has estimated that only 35,000 to 55,000 jobs will be created. This is the most important thing that Ministers should listen to[Interruption.] I wish the Minister would listen instead of talking to his colleague, because this is an important point.
	If 250,000 people live in the new houses in the Thames gateway and there are jobs for only 55,000 of them, and as every piece of literature and study that I have seen on the project is predicated on the basis that the Thames gateway will have transport links within 45 minutes of central London, it is inevitable that a large number of those newly housed people will have to commute back into jobs in central London. Commuting into and from central London every morning and evening is pretty much hell for thousands, if not millions, of people. If we are not going to put in the transport infrastructure at least at the same time as, but preferably ahead of, some of the new houses, we will be in great trouble.
	I also think that the Government are not taking a proper strategic approach, which is surprising given that the Prime Minister is taking a lead on the matter in his Cabinet committee Misc 22. We also know from the Minister that the Deputy Prime Minister is setting up a new quango. I regret that I was not in the Chamber to hear about that and apologise for being late, but I was at another meeting. If we are not careful, the project will have too many chiefs and not enough doers.
	We need to take a strategic approach to see where new jobs will be created in the next 13 to 20 years. Which industries will be successful in that time? The Government have not done that strategic thinking properly, and they need to do it. We need to see what new industries we could create in the east of London and what new jobs would follow from that. It will be a quagmire if we create all those new houses and there are no jobs in that area. It is environmentally unsustainablethe great buzz words of our timeand we need people to have jobs near their houses. That is the biggest single thing that the Government need to think about.
	The transport infrastructure to make the project work is enormous. The Minister of State, Department for Transport is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that he can give us some answers. What is the future of Crossrail? Who will pay for it? What is the time scale? What about the three estimated new Thames crossings, one of which is a bridge? What about the docklands light railway extension, which has already been mentioned? What about rail upgrades to areas such as Stansted and Tilbury? We need to know something about those developments to the transport infrastructure, as vast sums of money will be required to upgrade systems and fund new projects. Where is all the money coming from, and what is the time scale for construction?

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend has made some excellent points and has highlighted an issue of serious concern. The c2c line from Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street station is already at over-capacity. People stand on trains on that line every day, as they cannot find a seat. How will we increase capacity on that line for people who already live in the area, let alone for those who will take up all the new jobs and houses that we are going to create?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made an excellent intervention and anticipates what I am about to say. He makes a very good point about transport, but the same principle applies to schools, hospitals, health centres and every other public service. It is no good building all those houses if we do not consider how we will provide public services in the area. With a general election looming, the Government must clarify the development criteria that they expect in the next five to 10 years. Will they follow Kate Barker's proposal for a development land tax? How will section 106 and the social housing requirement work? Unless developers have a settled environment in which to work, the position will be very difficult.
	The concept of urban development corporations was implemented successfully by the last Conservative Government in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They made UDCs work by levering in money from the private sector and adopting a bidding approach. The present Government must be measured not by inputs but by outputsit is not about how much money they spend but about how effectively they spend it for the country. They need to think carefully about how they will lever in all that money. How will they organise or assemble large enough packages of land, possibly through compulsory purchase, which has been successful in some UDC areas?
	I do not wish to be too political, but the Minister for Housing and Planning must do a little better. Some of his answers to parliamentary questions, particularly those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), lack the detail or strategic thinking that I have been talking about. On 21 October 2004, my hon. Friend asked at column 861W how many fire stations and how many firemen and women will be required in the Thames gateway between 2003 and 2016a fairly simple question, one would have thought. [Interruption.] I am going to read out the answer, which I shall quote verbatim from Hansard:
	The information . . . is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.[Official Report, 21 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 861W.]
	If that is the usual level of detail that characterises thinking on the Thames gateway, the Minister must do much better, or the project will not get off the ground. Exactly the same answer was given in relation to leisure centres on 18 October 2004 at column 465W. Such matters of detail need to be thought through a little better.
	Before concluding, I should like to deal with some of the details that have been mentioned this evening. I have spoken about the transport infrastructure, but we need to consider carefully where all those houses will go. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that the Minister was incredibly sensitive about flooding. We must all be completely open about the problem of the flood plain and where we should build houses, because it would be monstrous to build houses that have any chance of being flooded whatsoever. Recently, there was a controversial planning application in Fairford in my constituency. It was nonsensethe local council turned down the application because the houses were likely to flood, but the Minister's inspector came along and said, No, you can build the houses there, as they are not likely to flood and we have a proper flood attenuation scheme in place. The Minister said tonight that there is only a one in a thousand chance of houses flooding in the Thames barrier area, but we all know that climate change is making matters much more unpredictable. We all know that in large areas of housing, with large areas of tarmac and concrete where rainwater can run off quickly, the risk of flooding is much greater. We will want to study the Environment Agency flood maps with great care and in great detail to see where the houses are to be built. The Government are working hard with the insurance industry. I am glad to hear that, because the insurance industry will not want to insure houses that have any chance of flooding. Perhaps that will be our safeguard.
	I should like to speak about design and density. Density may not be the universal theme of the gateway. There may be different densities in different parts. I have seen the detailed gateway plan and the Olympic bid plan. What is envisaged in those plans is first class. I hope the Government are successful in their Olympic bid. There is no stronger champion of it than I. The plan is excellent. It regenerates the lower Lea area, it will provide 3,000 social houses that will be left in the Olympic village after the games, and the plan will provide new green areas and water features. I went down to the Thames gateway offices in East London university to see the model for the gateway plan, and that plan is excellent too.
	We must, however, concentrate carefully on design and density. There is nothing wrong with dense housing per se. After all, look at Kensington, where there are some 80 houses to the hectare. Nobody would say that Kensington was excessively dense, but in other areasfor example, in my rural areas80 houses to the hectare would be far too many. There needs to be a harmonious mixture of medium-rise dense housing and less dense housing.
	We are becoming more and more knowledgeable about the design of housingfor example, how we insulate houses properly so that they are heat efficient, and how we make them last longer. It is a monstrosity that pre-cast reinforced concrete houses that were built in the 1960s are being pulled down. We should be designing houses with a longer life than 40 years. It is perfectly possible to do it, and to design decent houses so that people on any level of income can live in comfort and in warmth. That should be our aim in building new houses.
	Many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so to sum up, the Thames gateway project is the most exciting regeneration project that the country has ever faced. There are huge opportunities to ensure that London and hence the United Kingdom becomes one of the foremost places going forward in the 21st century. Let us for goodness' sake build well and make sure that jobs are near the places where people will live. I wish the Government every success.

Jonathan R Shaw: Harold Wilson once made a famous speech at a public meeting in my constituency. He asked, Why do I say that the Royal Navy is vital to the future of Britain?, and someone heckled him from the back and said, Because you're in Chatham.
	The Chatham dockyard was our heart and it is our proud history. In 198420 years ago nowit closed and thousands of people lost their jobs. Unemployment rose to almost 20 per cent. That was in the Garden of England. People sometimes take the view that the county is prosperous, but we have had our difficult times. It was painful, but unemployment is now at a record lowabout 3 per cent. The dockyard is once again breathing healthily. Once again it is the centre of employment, and of businesses, homes, schools and, most recently, a university. More than 20 million of Government money has been invested in the area.
	This evening, hon. Members have discussed what will happen in the Thames gateway, but if they came to Medway, they would see that experience and that investment happening today. The university of Greenwich and the university of Kent are working alongside our further education college, and we have recently received money for a construction training centre to provide vital skills to build the gateway. Hon. Members have discussed people moving into the area, but we want jobs and opportunities for the existing communities.
	Some 23 million has been invested in the development of brownfield sites. There has been some doubt whether the Government will put in the cash to ensure that land is decontaminated, but that is happening in the Medway towns. The idea of the Rochester/Chatham riverside development has been around since a Labour council entered office in 1991. My namesake, Councillor John Shaw, pioneered the Rochester/Chatham riverside, for which we have obtained 23 million. At one time, we had that aspiration and the Government supported our ideas, but their pocket was empty and so was ours; but thanks to this Government, we have got 23 million.
	We are in good shape to meet the challenges of the Thames gateway, but like so many communities, we have our shopping list, toosome things are in the trolley, but we want a few extras. As many hon. Members have said, the challenge of getting the Thames gateway right means that not everyone will get everything they want. However, transport is a common theme flowing throughout the debate, and a consensus exists among MPs who represent constituencies within the Thames gateway that we must get the transport right.
	I want to point to things that are already happening, such as private sector investment. Arriva, the main bus operator in Medway, has delivered 10 million of new buses around the Medway towns, because it recognises that the Medway towns are a growth area and that it can get more people on to its buses if it provides a regular, reliable and quality bus for passengers, which it is doing. The number of passengers on those fantastic new vehicles, which were commissioned a few months ago, is growing.
	We welcome the news about the channel tunnel rail link, which is one of the greatest engineering projects. I remember being in this House in 1998, when the project was seemingly doomed as a consequence of poor financial planning by the Conservative party. People forget that situation, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is a great man, saved the project.
	In Kent, we have had the pain of the channel tunnel rail link, and now we want some of the gain, which means a domestic service. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has ordered new bullet trains that will speed through the countyimportantly, those trains will also stop in the county and in the Medway towns. We welcome that 200 million investment, and the trains will come on stream in 2009.
	The channel tunnel rail link will be finished by 2007. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), who is currently taking notes, will tell ushis interest is as great as minewhether the operator that gets the new integrated Kent transport franchise can use Eurostars. Some Eurostars are currently mothballedcan we use them during that two-year period?
	It is 40 years since the Kent railway timetable was last reorganised. We await the new timetable, which will include the channel tunnel rail link domestic service. We do not want reduced services in 2006 and a three-year wait for replacement services. As the Thames gateway evolves, we must continually review and revise our train infrastructure and the timetable, which we must adapt according to people's work patterns. It is important that we do not have to wait another 40 years or so. I would like some answers on that.
	I will skip through the next part of my speech. Many of the things that I was going to say have already been said, so I shall I do not delay the House any longer than I need to. I am sure that that will be popular.
	For a dynamic area like the Thames gateway, we need continually to review our transport policies. When we look back 15 or 20 years from now, the question will be: did we enhance the communities and the lives of the people who already live there? Economic regeneration is vital but so is social regeneration.
	Many of my constituents read the grand plans. They can see some of the things happening, but those do not necessarily touch them in their everyday lives. There is still too much litter around. There are too many alleyways and Victorian terraces that are full of rubbish. It is seemingly difficult to remove the rubbish, because the houses are in the private sector.
	Are we getting it right in terms of the regeneration grants? Stamp duty reduction, for example, is a regenerator for the poorest wards in our communities, but where the scheme is situated in Medway is not where the poorest housing is. Those communities are stable. The scheme is run on a ward basis. It should not be, because wards can sometimes be skewedthey can contain a very poor area and a wealthy area alongside it, so we do not necessarily get the targeting of the resources that we want.
	The scheme should be run on a polling district basis or on a street basis. There are concerns that some streets of inner Chatham, the inner city of the Medway towns, which I represent, are at tipping point. Too many houses are in multiple occupation. That will not encourage people to remain living thereit will encourage flight. There needs to be greater joined-up thinking between Departments in providing incentives for people to remain in the area, to get good dealscheaper deals perhapsand to take advantage of the grants that are already available.
	There have been references to many community projects from hon. Members. I want to mention onethe All Saints neighbourhood project. That has been led by some commendable people living and working in the community around central Chatham. They have been involved with the clean-ups and getting the local community involved in the things they see when they step outside their front door: community projects, after school clubs, and improving play areas. Those are not the grand things, but they are important aspects of regeneration which the existing communities should feel part of. The grand plans are all very well but let us fix things that concern people in their daily lives. That is my greatest fear.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that my constituency crosses the boundary of the Thames gateway. I make this point for the communities that neighbour the gateway. The northern part of Tonbridge and Malling borough council is in my constituency. It is engaged with the Thames gateway process and is pleased to be able to do that. It is principally a green belt borough. It has land deposits but it cannot be an overspill site for the Thames gateway. If there are difficulties in achieving the housing on brownfield sites in the Thames gateway, the borough cannot be an overspill site. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would like to refer to that in his winding-up speech.
	Things in the Medway towns are already happening, and I have great faith that we will continue to deliver. All of us have a shopping list. It is only right that we stand here, occasionally poke the Minister in the ribs and remind him that there are some concerns as well as excitement, which many of us feel. I wish him and all his colleagues well in delivering a promising and bright future for my constituents.

Clive Efford: Let me say at the outset how much I welcome the regeneration of the Thames gateway area and the opportunities that it offers to my constituents. Those of us who value debate in the House as an opportunity to put our points across will inevitably focus on areas of concern or areas in which we seek change, and I appeal to Ministers to take our remarks in that context rather than thinking that we are being negative about the prospects that the development offers our communities.
	For too long, the east of London has been the poor relation in terms of economic development and opportunity. In the latter part of the last century we had enormous decline in the region, with the docks running down and a loss of industry. In the north of my borough, around Woolwich, 250,000 jobs disappeared in a generation from the Royal Arsenalan incredible number of jobs to lose in one area. People who do not know the area may not realise that around Woolwich there are some of the most deprived communities to be found anywhere in the country. The regeneration of the Thames gateway will bring enormous change to their lives and to the vitality of the economy in east London, and it is well overdue.
	On the day on which we have formally submitted our bid to host the Olympics, let me mention in passing the enormous opportunities that that brings to the area. I wish it every success.
	When the regeneration is completed, it is intended to create about 180,000 jobs, as well as about 120,000 homes. Much of the land to be regenerated is in public ownership, and that offers us an opportunity to achieve a great deal more social housing than is currently contemplated. Every week, my surgery is full of families who have three generations living in the same house. Young people, now with children of their own, have grown up in houses built by Labour Governments and Labour local authorities, and they look to Labour now to provide the opportunities for them and their families that their parents had before them.
	The process that we currently go through to develop social housing is invariably that we sell the local authority property to the private developer and then seek to negotiate back a proportion for social housing under section 106. I know from my discussions with housing associations that they would like to take on the management role for the development of some sites, so that they manage the whole project from beginning to end. They will sell some of the housing, so that we get mixed tenure: we are not talking about building huge council estates as we did in the past. We want to create balanced communities, achieving more from the value of the land to allow us to build more social housing.
	We need partnership with social landlords to maximise social housing. I am not advocating social housing exclusively for local people. That has been a disaster in the past and would not help the regeneration of the Thames gateway and bring in the diversity of people that we need to participate in the local economy and industry and to provide public services. We need much more affordable housing than I fear we will get if we are to accommodate existing residents who want to rent property that they can afford, and those who will make the gateway regeneration a success if they move into the area.
	Several Members have mentioned the obvious public services, such as health services and schools. Even the fire service was mentioned. A number of other public services do not spring to mind in the context of planning gain, however. I am thinking of supported housing units for people with learning disabilities, and further-education colleges. FE colleges need a great deal of capital. There will be an enormous demand for training in the area, and I think the negotiations should take that into account. My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that all those issues have been taken on board, but I fear that they are lost in talk of health centres, schools and the like. They slipped off the shopping list when we are telling private developers what we want.
	Much has been said about transport, but I want to say more about it. There is a plan to bring the docklands light railway to Woolwich in the north of my borough. As I have told my hon. Friend the Minister on several occasions, a swathe of south-east London is not served by the underground. We rely heavily on trains, as buses are still not considered an option for long-distance travel to and from central London. Bringing the DLR to Woolwich will enhance a major hub in south-east London. It benefits from several bus services and from rail services, butin the medium term, at leastit will have the DLR as well.
	According to the current plans to take Crossrail south of the river, it will bypass Woolwich. That will deprive people south of Greenwich and beyond of an essential link. The ability to use other forms of transport to reach a hub in the north of the borough could transform the way in which people reach their jobs each day, and could play a major part in relieving pressure on roads that are already much too congested. The lack of a Crossrail station will make it virtually impossible for large chunks of the population of south-east London to benefit from easy access to services.
	An enormous amount of money is being invested in the Thames gateway bridge. My hon. Friend the Minister will say that the problems cannot be solved simply by diverting funds from the bridgea road linkto Crossrail, but it is important to emphasise the importance of public-transport links.
	For more than two decades Greenwich council undertook some surveys into poverty in south-east London, particularly in Greenwich. The results of the surveys highlighted that those who were socially excluded did not have access to a car. The argument that the regeneration of the Thames gateway and the opportunities for people who do not have a car are predicated on the development of a road does not stack up given the evidence that we have found in the past.
	The argument was turned on its head when the congestion charge was introduced. It was said that people who did not have access to a car could not be disfranchised by the congestion charge. It is not possible to have it both ways. Either these people are in need of public transport links or they are not. We are planning to put an enormous amount of investment into the road. We are talking of the largest bridge to span the Thames in the London area. It will have two lanes for traffic and one lane for buses. Those of us who are more cynical than others could point to the fact that with bus lanes it is necessary only to change the colour of the tarmac to produce a three-lane motorway in each direction.
	We shall see an increase in the amount of traffic on already congested roads on the south side of the river. In my opinion, the community in this part of south-east London will be divided in the long term. The people concerned will experience what everyone else experiences when they live near a bridge. When the bridges in west London were closed for repair, people argued that they should remain closed. They and their communities cherished the relief that the closures brought to them as a result of reduced traffic congestion. That will result in people saying, We want relief from the traffic, and I believe that that will lead to them saying that they want a relief road. That will lead to the resurrection of the east London river crossing route, which has been the subject of so much controversy in south-east London.
	The issue should be taken before a public inquiry. There is no evidence to support the economic contribution that it is claimed that the Thames gateway bridge will bring about through the creation of jobs. In his submission on the bridge, Professor Whitelegg said that there was little evidence about the types of jobs that would be created by the bridge. The assertion that it would create 48,000 jobs has now been omitted from the Mayor of London's transport strategy. The figures of Halcrow, the consultants, show little evidence of the role that the Thames gateway bridge will play in the creation of jobs. The economic case is thin.
	There are environmental issues that need to be addressed and that can only be done by means of a public inquiry. That is essential if the bridge project is to go ahead. In terms of transport infrastructure development, it is so important that we place an emphasis on public transport. That is what will bring about access to jobs and opportunities for local people.

Nigel Beard: The House has heard a great deal this evening with which I agree. The potential of the area for housing, for business and for the development of new jobs is there to be seen. The conditions in the area at present are not right to attract these new developments.
	There has been a sequence of four or five studies going back 25 years, all of which have shown that the economic and social development of east London is inhibited and limited by the division of the area by the Thames. That is illustrated by the very few opportunities that exist to cross the Thames along the 15 miles to the east of Tower bridge compared with the vast number of opportunities that there are to do so in the 15 miles to the west, with the huge difference in the economic opportunities that exist there.
	That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the true significance of the Thames gateway bridge. It will bridge the problem and it will mean that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, for example, will be able to look right through London for job opportunities, whereas their ambit is curtailed at present to 180o. The same applies to businesses coming into the area. Presently, businesses are trapped in an area that is badly served by road transport, albeit alleviated to an extent by the Thames road improvement in my area. Generally, it is a difficult area to get out of, which inhibits the ability to exploit the full market of the whole of Greater London. That is the true significance of the Thames bridge.
	It also has a local role for London and for east London, in particular. Public transport provision will help to alleviate some of the potential traffic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) suggested, there is some local anxiety about the project being essentially the old east London river crossing in a new guise, but it is not really that at all. The old east London river crossing was meant as a strategic route right through London, taking traffic from the rest of Britain and bringing it down to the Channel ports. This bridge is already designed as a local means of crossing the river.
	Some anxiety remains in my constituency, particularly in the Brampton road area, about the possibility that the extra traffic generated will mean more traffic on the roads jeopardising the environment. I plead with Ministers to ensure that no penny pinching will take place in respect of minimising any environmental consequences of the bridge, which will play such a vital role for the development of east London. The minority who may suffer from increased traffic should not be caused to suffer when the benefits to the vast majority of the population are so large. We can afford generosity and sensitivity in dealing with their problems.
	The other major project that will open up the potential of the area is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) mentioned several times, Crossrail. It is particularly important to my constituents that it goes along the present alignment into south-east London from Canary Wharf, through the royal group of docks, on to Abbey Wood and then to Ebbsfleet. That alignment will take it through some of the largest areas for potential development anywhere in London: on the south bank of the Thames in north Greenwich and north Bexley. It will provide a link from the presently fairly isolated area of south London to Heathrow on the one side and to Ebbsfleet and the channel tunnel rail link on the other. The result will not be enhanced employment alone; it will enhance the whole quality of employment available in that area of London and make a very major contribution to regeneration.
	I believe that there is some anxiety in the City and Canary Wharf, which now draws many employees from west London, that that will not continue to happen, as the growth of the financial services industry in the area continues. They will increasingly need to pull people in from east London generally, south-east and north-east London. That need will be catered for by Crossrail on the planned two alignments. As well as underpinning development in south-east London, Crossrail could also underpin the potential growth of the biggest financial services centre in the whole of the European Union. As it grows, it could become the dominant force in the EU.
	If we are to achieve the potential for housing and businesses, the Thames bridge project and Crossrail must have definite timetables with enough finance behind them to give the private investor confidence that things will happen. If we have that, the private investment can come either before or alongside those developments. If, however, as has happened too often in the past, these become this year, next year, some time, never projects, the private sector will not have the confidence to bring investment in soon enough for us to gain real advantage. My plea is that Ministers ensure to the maximum extent possible that we have timetables for both the Thames bridge and Crossrail that are believable and that mean that private and public development go hand in hand.
	Finally, the provision for Crossrail will come before the House in a Bill to prepare the ground. Can we ensure that the branch to Ebbsfleet from Canary Wharf is included in that as an integral part of the Crossrail project?

Jon Cruddas: There has been a lot of cross-party agreement tonight, so I hope that I will not add a note of disagreement at the end of the debate. I want to raise a few issues about local buy-in to the whole regeneration process across the Thames gateway, and I hope that that will be taken in the spirit intended. Before that, I should say that I welcome the debate, which has allowed us to take stock of where the Thames gateway discussions have got to. It has been a good debate.
	My points relate specifically to my constituency and the sheer rate of change in the debate over the past few years. I entered into this discussion before I was elected to Parliament, when I worked in Downing street, because of economic transformations in the UK car industry. After BMW pulled the plug out of Rover in the west midlands, the next one on the runway would have been the Ford Dagenham plant. We got involved to manage the process of economic transformation and change, and that quickly got me involved in a series of economic and social relationships above and beyond the Ford Dagenham estate, to do with the work of the Thames Gateway London partnership and what was happening in terms of the single regeneration budget project at the heart of the Thames gateway.
	What we decided during those difficult transformations in 19992000 is beginning to come on stream now. For example, in collaboration with the Mayor's office, the London Development Agency and the Department of Trade and Industry, we agreed to set up the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence, which was opened last year by the Prime Minister on the Ford estate in my constituency. That is altering the life chances of local people in enabling them to take qualifications up to the most advanced postgraduate level in engineering and manufacturing, and that is much to be welcomed.
	At the same time, we agreed a package to build a new Ford engine plant on the Dagenham estate, which the Prime Minister also opened last year. We are in discussions to increase capacity at the plant over the coming period to ensure that we have an enduring legacy of diesel technology and engine manufacture in Dagenham.
	What was the SRB project around the heart of the Thames gateway has been transferred or consolidated into the London Riverside regeneration company. I should declare an interest as an LDA nominee on the board of that company and as an LDA nominee as a director on the CEME project.
	All that is to be welcomed, and those are secure building blocks, which were developed during 19992000. Since then, there has been a massive intensification of the debate and policy developments around it. We have to ask why that has occurred. Obviously, we have had the Mayor of London's spatial economic development plan as well as strategies by which he can manage economic change and population movements in London by pushing the centre of gravity of policy making eastwards. That has come alongside the strategies of local boroughs, which have been in development for a number of years, to try to confront local issues of poverty and deprivation. At the same time, we have had the Government's national prioritisation of the Thames gateway, arising partly because the housing crisis in the south-east acts as a brake on broader patterns of economic change across other regions of the British economy. We have to put the brakes on interest rates because of that, meaning that growth is constrained elsewhere in the economy, irrespective of economic context in different regions. Secondly, as we saw in the review of our prospective entry into the euro, the housing market in the south-east constrains entry because of the possible effect that a reduced pan-European interest level would have in reigniting growth in the south-east. That would in turn have an effect on other regions in the UK.
	Therefore, we have come a long way since I first got involved in 19992000 and the Government should be commended for the rigour with which they have approached the issue, the thinking behind some of the policy prescriptions and for turning it into a national priority, with its own Cabinet sub-committee. However, the various objectives of different levels of government with regard to the Thames gateway throw up different priorities and create tensions in the debate. The first concern is the structures and institutions involved. The number of institutions working in parallel on aspects of regeneration has already been pointed outfor example, the LDA, the boroughs, local regeneration partnerships, English Partnerships and the new London Thames Gateway Development Corporation. That all shows the commitment to regeneration, but we need a clear delineation of responsibilities, otherwise, we could create confusion, hesitation and fragmentation.
	We should not concentrate all developments and priorities within certain sectors of the Thames gateway. That concern is felt in the London riverside area, in terms of the Olympic bid and the possible reprioritisation of projects towards the eastern area, at the expense of developments to the west within the urban development corporation boundaries. Transport infrastructure is also critical. I flag up the issue of the Thames gateway bridge, but I welcome the commitments that the Government have made, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) mentioned.
	All these aspects of the issue are welcome, but there is a brittleness about some of the decision making. My real concern is local community buy-in to the overall gateway strategy. As I said earlier, Dagenham sits at the geographical centre of the Thames gateway. It covers much of the London riverside part of the gateway and has a massive amount of brownfield land. Across the London riverside area, excluding Barking town centre, we anticipate some 20,000 new homes over the next 10 to 15 years. It is also one of the smallest boroughs in London and has a great strategic location.
	Notwithstanding the future developments, change is already occurring at an astonishing rate. It is estimated that the population has increased by some 20,000 since 2001. That is partly because we have the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London. As house prices have risen, aspiring members of the property-owning democracy have gravitated towards the area, so that we have increased demand for housing in the borough. At the same time, the effect of the right-to-buy policy has meant a greater supply of private housing stock than previously. People are also ahead of the curve in terms of the Government's strategy for east London and are gravitating towards the Thames gateway because they foresee the future economic developments in the area.
	Cumulatively, those elements are transforming the local community day by day. However, that is occurring even before we trigger the changes anticipated under the gateway proposals. That transformation is colliding with the long-term legacy of poverty, deprivation and underinvestment in public services in the locality. That is the crux of the issue of regeneration in Dagenham. A fundamental tension exists between our historic economic and social legacy, current changes that are transforming our community and the radical changes that are envisaged in the future. On top of all that, we have the toxic politics of race, operating within the context of limited resources, great need and rapid change, both now and in the future.
	Consider, for example, some of the basic characteristics of the community. It is the lowest-wage economy in Greater London. Adult numeracy is the lowest in the country and adult literacy the fourth lowest, and the number of people with higher education qualifications is the lowest in the country. Heart and lung disease, infant mortality and life expectancy are among the worst in the capital.
	Yes, we are seeing incremental change: some of the schools are the fastest improving not only in the capital but in the country, and new integrated health centres are being built across the borough. The new hospital at Oldchurch will, I hope, open in the next 18 months. That is all incrementally positive changebut it operates in the context of population expansion that places even greater tension and pressure on local public services.
	Take, for example, health funding. We have an acknowledged serious under-capitation. Despite a recent generous settlement, we will be 10.7 per cent. under capitation in three years' timeone of only four primary care trusts nationally to be in that situation. That amounts to a year-on-year shortfall of 24 million a year in PCT funding, with no defined commitment to sorting it out.
	That is before we even begin to consider the additional pressures arising from our own current population growth, let alone future population growth. Even on the basis of out-of-date population statistics, the discretionary Thames gateway funding for health is small beer in the context of that structural health funding problem. For example, this year we received some 700,000 to deal with the population changes, which is not a lot, given the 24 million annual shortfall.
	My point is simple: we do not have enough resources to deal with our historic problems, let alone current and future changes. How does that manifest itself? Change is always difficult for people, and it is more difficult when resources are severely limited. For people to feel comfortable, they have to have confidence in change, and feel that it will benefit them and their families. At the moment there are not enough secure footings on the ground in terms of public service delivery for people to feel confident in the broader patterns of economic transformation.
	Housing is another example. There are about 6,000 people on our waiting list in the borough. Historically, here more than almost anywhere else in the country, the local community has relied on the principle of council housing to deliver socialised housing provision. Yet last year, because of changes in the make-up of local authority social housing grant, the authority lost about 12 million on a couple of key sites, and had to establish its own partnerships with a developer so that it could maintain control of nominations to the social housing dwellings.
	That has engendered real concerns about the ability to provide local homes for local people in the context of both current changes in the community and future housing developments with limited nominations for local people. Again, the lack of a base camp of confidence to deal with current problems undermines the confidence in future changes. The local population therefore feel threatened and concerned, and that rich brew of legacy versus current changes within the community, let alone future changes, manifests itself today in far-right activity. Two months ago, the British National party secured its first council seat for 11 years in the capital, in the constituency next to mine, and in the same borough. That development did not fall out of the sky; it is a manifestation of the tensions over resources in the context of changing communities and long-term historic need.
	I have raised those points to illustrate some of the possible tensions surrounding future regeneration in the Thames gateway. In our community, the stakes are high. The jury is out on local buy-in to the whole gateway agenda. We must do more to build confidence in the community, and that must be translated into resources. Regeneration must be built on fairness that takes local people with the process of change. If it is not, the phrase sustainable communities will seem as a complete and utter misnomer.
	I am confident about the agenda for change, but I do not underestimate some of the difficulties attached to it. For my community, the whole question of the Thames gateway can go in one of two ways. It could continue the previously repeated process by which people feel threatened and hostile because something is being done to them rather than with them, with the corresponding angry resentment that can be articulated in extreme forms. Alternatively, it could be a rewarding and liberating process of material, economic and social change that takes people with it and genuinely builds new sustainable communities. I am extremely confident that the Thames gateway agenda will take the latter route rather than the former, but I do not underestimate the difficulties attached to the process of change.

John Hayes: I draw the attention of the House to my interests in the Register, although they are not terribly relevant to tonight's deliberations. I also apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debatea fact that I had anticipated and of which I informed both, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Members on the Treasury Bench.
	This has been a good debate, but it is a tragic irony that the sustainable communities plan is neither sustainable nor really about communities. Conservatives believe it inappropriate to target development on areas where development pressure is already greatest. What does it really say about regeneration to put extra resources, build extra houses and create extra jobs in a corner of Britain that is already the most prosperous? What does that say about job creation for people in areas where unemployment is still a blight?
	The Thames gateway, though, is different, qualitatively and quantitatively, from the rest of the sustainable communities plan. It is different because the development is largely on brownfield land and thus implicitly regenerative; different, too, because of its location. Our fundamental doubts about the Government's strategy and our doubts about the sustainability of their communities plan are not all reflected in our views about the Thames gateway project.
	I remind the House that we are not alone in doubting the suitability and viability of the Government's programme for housing development. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) highlighted the severe concerns of his constituents about housing numbers, but it is not only themimportant though they are. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee described the impact of the Government's housing programme on the environment as potentially unsustainable. The Committee said:
	The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, has not been fully assessed . . . The additional homes could place excessive demands on the environment, leading to the loss of green-field sites and excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources . . . The Government . . . has yet to estimate the costs of providing the transport links, health care, education and all the other facilities which new neighbourhoods require.
	The Committee has delivered its verdict on the Government; it is not a happy one for the Minister who will reply to the debate.
	In a series of speeches, we have heard real questions about several aspects of the development. We have heard questions about environmental issues, infrastructure issues and project management. I shall deal with them in turn, beginning with the environmental concerns.
	There are issues about water resources that have yet to be properly answered. We know that water resources in the south of Englandin the capital, in Kent and Essexare already under pressure and the Minister must give us firm answers to the relevant questions. There are issues about developments on the flood plain. I take the view of the Minister for Housing and Planning that flood risk needs to be assessed in terms of flood record. As I represent the fens in Lincolnshire, I understand that one cannot say that simply because an area is at risk, irrespective of its record of flooding and its existing defences, one should not build there. If that were the case, my constituency would not exist and that would be a monstrous thing, as the whole House will agree. The Minister is right: record and risk need to be balanced but, nevertheless, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) put some important questions about that matter and we need more than the dismissive answer he was given.
	There are also issues about the effect of the development on air quality. I should like to hear answers on that subject in the Minister's summing up, as well as on the issues raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about biodiversity, wildlife and green spaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also talked about the impact of the development on the quality of life. Those issues, too, deserve an answer and I know that the Minister is well equipped to deal with them all in considerable detail in the time available.
	Perhaps even more fundamental than those environmental concerns are the concerns about infrastructure that have been debated at some length during our deliberations. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), in a telling phrase, said that the lack of infrastructural investment inhibits opportunity. She said that was especially damaging to the interests of her poorer constituents. She is right.
	The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said I use his wordsthat pressing on without dealing with the infrastructural challenges would be the greatest mistake. Other hon. Members have questioned the issues associated with a balance between jobs and transport. I particularly highlight the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who always speaks with great authority on these matters. He gave us the figures, and they were stark: 240,000 extra people and 55,000 extra jobs; that involves a large number of people travelling, and they need high quality transport infrastructure to do so efficiently, at their comfort and with appropriate ease. Yet there are still enormous gaps in the information that the Government have made available to us.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has touched on the most important thing in the debate: it is not just a question of all those people travelling, but where they travel to. The Government have not identified what are the industries and businesses of the futurethe next 10 to 20 yearsto which those people will travel, but we hope that we can create those businesses on their doorsteps and make them environmentally sustainable.

John Hayes: We hope that we can do so, but until the Government come up with persuasive answers to the important questions that have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight, we cannot be certain. It would not be appropriate to proceed, as the hon. Member for Dartford said, unless we are reasonably certain about these fundamental matters.
	The Government have been repeatedly asked to articulate how the infrastructure provision for the communities plan projects, particularly the Thames gateway, will be funded. The ODPM has stated that the finances for the Thames gateway development corporation have not been fully determined and that part of the funding will come from the 446 million allocated for regeneration from the last Government spending review. Not only is that explanation inadequate, but so is the funding.
	The Library pack prepared for the debate includes extracts from the Thames gateway regional spending plan, but I do not know whether any hon. Member noticed that there are no figures in that spending plan. The conclusion says:
	The Thames gateway London partnership will be in a position to comment more fully on its proposed framework for area-based schemes once Transport for London issues further clarification on the timing and content of revised Guidance.
	The project faces massive funding problems, and there are massive doubts about the effectiveness of the infrastructure. We have heard from a variety of Members about the need for Crossrail, but the Government have yet to provide clear answers on that either.
	There are conflicting views about the bridge. I heard what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) said about the paucity of provision on the east side of London. I was born in south-east London, at Woolwich, as generations of my family have been, so I can speak with some authority about the Thames, and I was pleased to grow up in Eltham. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) contributed to the debate. He is right to say that such things are difficult and create limited opportunities for people travelling to work and leisure and for all kinds of other purposes, but I have doubts about the bridge because independent analysis, which he mentioned, has questioned whether the project is appropriate and whether it will deliver what it was once said that it might. Again, that requires Government clarification and comment. We cannot be left in the dark any longer about those matters.
	The issue of project management has been raised. It is often said that too many cooks spoil the broth, and plenty of cooks are involved in this project, are they not? The number of organisations, the lack of accountability and the range of conflicting agendas have been mentioned by many hon. Members.
	People are not mere units and homes are not just buildings. This project must be about building real communities, not soulless sprawling estates of houses that have little to offer beyond ubiquity. We must look beyond utility to grace and beauty; each home should be in keeping with its neighbour, and each settlement should be in tune with the prevailing landscapeergonomically, ecologically and environmentally sustainable. Real communities are mixed communities: jobs and leisure, shops and open spaces, churches, schools, clubs and pubsall the little platoons with their individual intricacies, courtesies and civilities that together make up civilised life.
	A number of key questions remain. Will the Minister in summing up clarify the infrastructural shortfalls? Will he consider ways to address them by using public funds to trigger private investment? It has been estimated that we need 55 primary schools, 10 secondary schools, nine leisure centres and six playing fields, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and by inference by the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Thurrock. Will the Minister also deal with the fundamental issue of transport?
	Will the Minister commit to determining the extent of this development by using environmental, ecological and infrastructural criteria? That means air, water, biodiversity, flooding, but also liveability to use a term that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has used. Will it be a good place to live?
	Will the Minister look again at the shortfall in the skills necessary to deliver the project that was identified by the chairman of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment? He said that the project could not be sustained on the basis of inadequate skills and pointed out:
	There are simply not enough people with the right skills to do the job. This is the biggest single barrier to the achievement of the Communities Plan.
	Will the Minister rethink what sustainability really means? That means reviewing RPG9A and redesignating sufficient land that is currently earmarked for employment for residential purposes. It means understanding that living communities are mixed and diverse communities. They make demands on active citizens and pay them back in the currency of the joy of shared identity and pride.
	Will the Minister raise the bar in respect of design? All that we build should add to what is there. Appropriate standards in design, density, access to amenities, layout and green spaces will engender a sense of place, distinctiveness and deliver an aesthetic feel-good factor.
	We plant trees for those born later, and we build houses for them too. This is an opportunity to be grasped or an enormous mistake to be made. Beyond party, this Government have an opportunity and this House has a duty to make the right decisions. If we do not, those born later will not forgive us.

Tony McNulty: This has been a thoughtful and reflective debate, for which I am grateful. Clearly, I cannot answer in 13 minutes all the questions that were asked, but I shall begin by saying a few words by way of introduction.
	The contribution of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was interesting. He clearly swallowed the lexicography of the sustainable communities plan and regurgitated it at his leisure. I can cheerfully say that we are heading in precisely the direction that he outlined on all the major points that he mentioned. I shall come to some of them in detail later.
	I welcome what I thought was an offer to treat the issue in a cross-party or non-party basis. In my year as a Minister responsible for housing regeneration in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and subsequently as a Transport Minister, I have taken the firm view that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right. It is a massive undertaking and one of the problems in the debate is that we have confused two to three-year horizons with 15, 20 or 30-year horizons. If the task is undertaken properly, it will take a generation and more to see it through to completion.
	I fully endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the durability and sustainability of the project. I am grateful, in the mainI know that there are local concerns, and I will come to themthat people have eschewed the notion that the gateway, which he referred to in the context of the wider sustainable communities plan, is all about concreting over every blade of grass between here and Southend and Manston airport in Kent and that, if we are not concreting it over, we will face serious difficulties with flooding. I shall come to the serious concerns about flooding later, but I am grateful to the House that the debate has not taken place in the stunted playground context in which serious debates about planning regeneration often take place.
	The Government have taken on board real local concerns. We are serious about sustainability and infrastructure investment in the broadest context. I entirely accepted what hon. Members said about health, education and other forms of social infrastructure being equally as important as transport, which is my specific responsibility. I also accept that biodiversity, the green dimension, liveability and quality of life are equally important. The charge that such issues are being ignored is not well made.
	I heartily supported what I thought wasin the endthe endorsement of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for the entire project. He said that it would be a mistake to press on without appropriate infrastructure, and I think that everyone in the Chamber is with my hon. Friend on thatperhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would not agree, but we will leave him to one side on his own planet.
	It is not appropriate to cite Eastern Quarry as a problem. I have said publicly while sitting next to a leading representative of the company that it is inappropriate for a land security developer to spend more than a year faffing with its traffic assumptions without sharing them with other public bodies that have the right to know how a specific development would fit with the rest of the transport infrastructure. We are not making mistakes in that regard. The situation is still one of drip-feeding, so we need to go beyond that.
	I tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and others who raised the matter that I am sad in that I still read Regeneration and Renewal and avidly wait for my copy each week. I thought that the specific article about myriad organisations was simplistic to the point of being fatuous and that it let down the publication. We are trying slowly in some cases, although faster in others, to get all assorted organisations and public bodieselected and otherwisein each and every area together so that we can start to sing with a united voice. That is difficult, but standing on the outside and talking at length about the complexity and difficulty of the task of bringing many bodies together is fatuous and adds nothing to the debate.
	It is appropriate for the Highways Agency to deal with the major strategic roads in this country, but it is equally appropriate for it to sit down and talk to Dartford, Medway, and other delivery bodies. It is appropriate for Basildon to lead Basildon's renaissance and contribution to regeneration in the gateway, but it is also appropriate for Essex county council, English Partnerships, the train operators and others to have a voice. The trick is drawing all bodies together to focus on what is needed in a specific area and to determine how that fits with the wider strategic concerns of south Essex, north Kent or the whole gateway. It is easy to sit on the sidelines saying, Oh look, there's 14 organisations. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton read a good number of them out, but although that is a clever little fourth-form debating point, it adds nothing to the substance of the debate. If complexities and overlaying contributions still exist, they must be busted through. That is exactly what is happening in Thurrock and Basildon, and with Renaissance Southend and others. We have started from the premise that it is usually more appropriate, especially in south Essex and north Kent, for localities to choose their delivery mechanisms and to bring together all those involved.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who is not in the Chamber, seemed to suggest that the easy answer was to apply a fully-blown London Docklands development corporation from Southend and the north Kent coast all the way back to the Isle of Dogs. He said that the LDDC was such a wonderful example of how to move forward on these issues that we should simply recreate it. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested, the LDDC was a complete disaster in its early days. It did not recognise the concept of community buy-in to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) referred or the notion that communities existed. We think that urban development corporations are appropriate for east London, despite some concerns that were raised, and for Thurrock, when they are contiguous with borough boundaries. Other delivery mechanisms are appropriate elsewhere, but there should not be a LDDC incarnate in any shape or form.
	The concerns expressed about flood plains and flooding are genuine. New planning policy guidance note 25 goes far further than anything in the past. At each and every step, there will be, as we said, a flood risk assessment of the plans submitted by every delivery body and of the plans and applications from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There has been engagement with the Environment Agency from day one on the series of issues relating to flooding. The problem is not new, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister suggested, the area is well protected in terms of flood alleviation and much better protected than most of the country. However, that does not mean that we are complacent because we have to keep on the case.
	My right hon. Friend spoke of the criteria and the driftlet me say that and no moretowards scaremongering. Some 17 London boroughs would be under water or in serious difficulty were it not for the Thames barrier and flood alleviation measures. I take the point that those should be kept under review, and they are.
	Some of the general points about transport have merit if we are looking across a 20 to 30-year horizon. I firmly believeI have always said this and have got into trouble with colleagues from Essex and Kent for doing sothat although there can be significant development in north Kent, Basildon and some of the other urban parts of Essex, the key success to the gateway on the initial five to seven-year horizon is at the London end.

John Hayes: rose

Tony McNulty: I apologise, but I do not have time to give way.
	To suggest that the transport infrastructure planned for London is insufficient is abject nonsense. It is going in the right direction. Of course more should be done, but if we include the schedules suggested by the Transport for London business plan, the best part of 1 billion will be invested in transport infrastructure over the next three years throughout the gateway. That is not money for plans, working parties or fancy offices for the myriad organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but money for real projects.
	On the Thames gateway bridge and the DLR North Woolwich, the London end needs to be redeveloped alongside developments elsewhere. The redevelopment of the London end will contribute nearly half the houses in the gateway, but we would commit a significant mistake in public policy terms if, because of an historical anomaly, south London were left out. So we need the DLR to go under the Thames to Woolwich Arsenal and the Thames gateway bridge for local traffic.
	Much has been done in all matters raised. Hon. Members will forgive me if I do not go near the topic of Shell Haven. I am the planning Minister involved in that and cannot talk about the application in any way, shape or form because I will determine the decision in the near future. In terms of jobs, we do not want to recreate the mistakes of the past by having linear commuter dormitory towns, with people flooding back into London, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said. Of course we need jobs in the area in the right place for the right people.
	The learning and skills councils are jointly considering the skills audit and the skills deficiencies. Colleagues in other Departments are working with us in the ODPM and the Department for Transport to ensure that all aspects of the infrastructure develop alongside the assorted communities so that we grasp the potential in the gateway. We should stop talking about it. The shift of London's economic focus to the east and away from the west has been talked about incessantly for probably hundreds of yearsit certainly predates the 1930s. We have the infrastructure investment plans necessary for the next wave of gateway investment. Of course, more needs to be done in the 20 to 30-year vista. However, across the piece, we are going in the right direction regarding infrastructure. Mistakes will be made along the way, but if a cross-party consensus can be forged, we have an historic, national and, I venture to say, international opportunity to put the UK on the map
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION
	  
	Iraq

Bob Spink: The Magna Carta, the Act of 1406 and the William and Mary Bill of Rights of 1688 all gave rights to citizens to petition the Government. MPs have a duty to present petitions, even where the terms of the petition may be disagreeable to them personally. I disagree with the terms of the petition on the war on Iraq that I am about to present. The Iraqi people, the region and the world will benefit in the longer term from the war, even though its prosecution has been poorly directed. We can all agree, however, that our forces on the ground are acting with great courage and professionalism and, where necessary, with compassion.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Mr. Chris Keen, Mrs. Irene Willis, Ms Petchy and others of like disposition sheweth.
	That there is deep concern over the conduct of the war in Iraq and for the humanitarian situation currently in Iraq.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to withdraw the support of British Troops for Bush's massacres in Iraq's cities and the senseless slaughter of civilians which is making a desperate situation even worse.
	And your Petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

HEALTH SERVICE FUNDING (BARNSLEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Watson.]

Eric Illsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the funding of health services in the Barnsley area. This is not the first occasion on which I have done so in an Adjournment debate, as you, Mr. Speaker, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), are probably aware.
	Health funding in Barnsley has been a problem for several years, mainly because the area has one of the greatest needs for health services in the country, but it is among the lowest funded. Over the years, our area, which used to be part of the former Trent health authority, has been funded well below the 100 per cent. target. It is now said that we are funded below our fair share, which is a more descriptive and apt phrase. We have a high level of health need in Barnsley, but our funding simply does not reflect that.
	I shall go into further details later, but first I shall give some background and highlight a few issues affecting Barnsley's health services. To some extent, they are good news stories. First, Barnsley district general hospital is currently being considered for the award of foundation status, and we are optimistic that a positive decision will be made. I wish to place on record my congratulations to all the hospital staff, who worked hard to achieve the three-star ratings over two years that enabled the application to proceed. We await the decision with interest. Secondly, Barnsley has opened the first three facilities under the LIFTlocal improvement finance trustprogramme nationwide. It has provided three needy communities within the Barnsley area with excellent new health facilities, and we are proud that we were the first area to open such facilities. That 10 million investment is probably the biggest investment in primary and community health facilities that Barnsley has ever had. At this point I should flag up a caveat. The primary care trust signed contracts for a number of LIFT facilities before funding under the LIFT programme was restricted because of high demand. That could lead to contractual problems and funding concerns in the near future.
	Another success story is the e-booking system, or choose and book, as it is called in the Barnsley area. Barnsley is proud that a local general practitioner was the first to implement the service, under the pathfinder or early implementer pilot scheme. Despite an article on the subject that appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday, which reported that the programme had been frozen, I am reliably informed today that the programme is continuing in the Barnsley area and is working well. It provides patients with a choice of hospital date to see their consultant.
	Intermediate treatment centres are another innovation for which the local PCT is signed up, but we need to encourage more take-up by the local populace. We are contracted for a five-year period and unless people attend the centres, there will be financial consequences. It is worth noting that our waiting lists are comparatively low and we do not have problems of bed blocking in our area. We are fully behind the Government's programmes and initiatives relating to health. We are delighted to have had those two firsts under the LIFT programme and the choose and book programme, but we have a continuing problem with regard to funding.
	To provide some background to the situation in Barnsley, I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the 200203 annual audit letter from the Audit Commission in respect of Barnsley PCT. Under the heading Key messages the Audit Commission commented:
	We have found that the Trust has made good progress since its inception in April 2002. There is evidence of progressive initiatives that indicate an energy and desire to develop appropriate and quality healthcare services for the residents of Barnsley in partnership with other local agencies.
	This is praiseworthy, particularly as the funding locally falls well below that indicated by the funding formula developed by the Department of Health. The shortfall not only restricts the PCT's ability to develop services required to meet the NHS Plan targets, but also constrains management capacity to implement further change initiatives.
	This creates a very difficult climate in which to develop services as quickly as the PCT might wish.
	Later in the same audit letter, under the heading Financial standing, the Audit Commission made further comments in relation to Barnsley's funding situation:
	The Trust met its financial targets in 2002/2003. In the current year, significant pressures exist. Although the Trust is projecting a break-even position, this is only achievable by using non-recurrent measures to meet a recurrent revenue deficit estimated at 5 million. This clearly is not sustainable. Ultimately, either services will have to be downgraded, or, under the present financial regime, financial balance may not be achieved.
	I am speaking of 200203I will come to the present situation in a momentto highlight the background to the continuing shortfall in our finances. The Audit Commission went on to deal with our financial standing in 200304 and reported:
	While the Trust is forecasting a break-even position for 2003/2004, there is a significant recurrent revenue deficit. This is being met by non-recurrent means. Overall therefore the financial position is unbalanced and requires fundamental adjustment, preferably by a significant uplift in funding.
	The Audit Commission continued:
	The Barnsley health community has, based on DoH target funding, been under-funded for several years. For example the difference between target funding and actual funding for 2003/2004 is a shortfall of 13.6 million. As a consequence, there has always been a need to exercise stringent control to maintain financial balance. However, this is aggravated in an environment where the same targets apply nationally, and local performance is judged against those targets, without recognition of the reduced funding available to meet them.
	Financial pressures this year are markedly higher than in 2002/2003. Although the PCT is projecting a break even position for the year end, there is a significant recurrent deficit estimated to be some 5m.
	The original plans were for this deficit to be met by means of:
	  2m brokerage from South Yorkshire Strategic HA
	  1m capital to revenue transfer
	  2m from future funding allocations that could be applied to the deficit.
	Even with those savings, the PCT was still required to find a further 2 million of savings.
	The Audit Commission summed up the position:
	The general situation is unsatisfactory, and cannot be sustained indefinitely. Developments to meet NHS plan targets are at risk of failure because of inadequate funding. It is difficult to maintain incentives to find efficiency savings when all savings found must be used to meet the underlying deficit.
	Having discussed 200203, the letter examined 200304, for which the story was exactly the same. The letter stated the position at the end of the financial year 200304 and pointed out the problems for 200405:
	The PCT achieved financial balance in 2003/04, although overspending on prescribing was funded from slippage on new developments . . . The PCT has a good record for robust financial control but faces very significant challenges over the medium term.
	This is the important passage:
	For 2004/05 the PCT recognised a deficit of some 15.6m in the LDP process, which prompted a request for planned brokerage from the SHA of 9.7m. This combined with a non-recurrent recovery plan to be developed by the PCT would achieve financial balance in 2004/05. The PCT has developed a recovery plan to release 6.6m savings during 2004/05; however we understand that the SHA is not yet in a position to formally guarantee the delivery of the planned brokerage. As a consequence financial balance remains at risk.
	In subsequent years, the roll out of payment by results will start to impact on funding and payment issues.
	For how long can Barnsley PCT be required to broker huge sums of money to meet those funding shortfalls? In the previous financial year, it provided 2 million of brokerage, and it is required to broker 9 million to achieve financial balance at the end of this financial year. Basically, it must make 6 million of cuts in the current financial year to meet that break-even position. How long can it continue to borrow such sums while making cuts at the same time?
	In 200506, Barnsley will receive 15.5 million less than its fair share of resources, and the allocation of resourcesit is known as the pace of changemeans that we are unlikely to reach our 100 per cent. target before 2015. We are in danger of replacing what we used to call the postcode lottery on health care with a postcode funding lottery.
	What are the effects of the shortfall in funding? The 18-week target for see and treat will provide a major improvement to patient care. However, the shortfall will have an impact on acute capacity. For Barnsley, that capacity is likely to cost 20 million from now until 2008. Barnsley PCT simply does not have the resources to deliver that 18-week target. I make a plea to the Minister. Future funding allocations must recognise that. We must either reduce the target in relation to our PCT or improve the resources available to it.
	I have already mentioned the LIFT programme. Improving primary care is a national and local priority. We need to improve access, and the range and quality of services. To do that in Barnsley, we need between eight and 10 primary care centres. I have mentioned that we have three already. Those are funded from the general medical services contract and from the NHS bank, but the funding is now over-committed and, as a consequence, is being rationed. Therefore further developments have to be funded from baseline allocation. Barnsley PCT simply cannot allocate any more funds to the LIFT programme, so our development is likely to be curtailed, although we may achieve one more LIFT initiative.
	There is a fear that the local private-public partnership LIFT company, which was established to deliver that programme, could face insolvency very soon. Obviously, because of the unavailability of further GMS revenue funding, any further GP-led primary care developments are likely to be curtailed. So having been led to believe that we were to get up to 10 new premises, we will be lucky to achieve four. That is simply unfair.
	I have outlined clearly my concerns regarding the funding of Barnsley PCT. As I have mentioned, we have high levels of need, mortality and morbiditysome of the highest in the country. To give two quick examples, a boy born today in the most disadvantaged part of Barnsley can expect to live 12 years less than a boy born today in an affluent part of England, and Barnsley's death rate is 15 per cent. higher than the England and Wales average. As I have pointed out, ours is one of the lowest funded health authorities in the area and it constantly struggles to balance the books. It is high time that struggle was ended and our financial situation once and for all improved.

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing the debate and on his continuing interest in the health service in his constituency. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who I see in his place, have raised before in the House their concerns about health service funding in Barnsley and have also discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, so tonight is by no means an exceptional demonstration of their commitment to the NHS in Barnsley.
	I am also aware that a meeting tomorrow evening has been organised by the coalfield communities campaign, which, I believe, is based in Barnsley, to discuss the specific issue of health service funding in coalfield areas. I do not know whether my hon. Friends will be at the meeting, but I hope that it goes well. As Thanet and Dover, the two councils that represent my own constituency, are members of the campaign, I have a personal interest in their success.
	I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said. He set out the case fairly and accurately but perhaps not quite in its full context. I start by putting it in context. The national health service in England is benefiting from record investment. Over the years 200304 to 200708, expenditure on the NHS in England is increasing on average by 7.2 per cent. a year over and above inflation, a total increase over the period of 42 per cent. in real terms. That will take the total spent on the NHS in England from 69 billion in 200405 to 92 billion in 200708.
	Along with other areas, Barnsley is benefiting from this record level of investment and, I am pleased to saymy hon. Friend put this fairly in his contribution has been making effective use of the resources it has received. Barnsley primary care trust is receiving 247.7 million in the current financial year, increasing to 270.7 million in 200506. In total, over the period 200304 to 200506, the increase in funding available to Barnsley PCT is more than 64 million, or 31 per cent.
	That is a real and significant level of investment in health services in Barnsley, and it has produced real benefits for local people. For example, all the residents of Barnsley are able to make an appointment to see a GP within two working days and no one in the Barnsley area now waits more than 13 weeks for a first out-patient appointment or more than nine months for in-patient treatment. Barnsley district general hospital provides excellent services for local people: 98 per cent. of people with suspected cancer see a specialist within 48 hours, and 97 per cent. of patients are in and out of accident and emergency within four hours.
	New building and facilities are also coming on line. Later this month, three new primary care centres developed as part of the first wave of the local improvement finance trust will open in Goldthorpe, Thurnscoe and Worsborough, while at the district general hospital new imaging and breast cancer services are being developed. None of these major improvements would have happened if we had not elected a Labour Government in 1997, as my hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge, and none of them would have been made without the dedication and hard work of people on the ground, and I join him in commending the staff working in the local NHS for their dedication in bringing about real improvements to health services in Barnsley.
	A few moments ago, I mentioned the allocation of money to my hon. Friend's PCT, so let me explain how the Department of Health decides what funds primary care trusts should receive. Clearly, different parts of the country have different health needs. The national resource allocation formula, which is used to inform revenue allocations for PCTs, recognises that fact. The formula is based on the age distribution of the population, additional need over and above that accounted for by age, and the unavoidable geographical variations in the cost of providing services.
	The formula was criticised in the past for failing to get health services to the areas of greatest health need. Getting resources to people with greatest need and ensuring equity of treatment are fundamental principles of faith for this Government, so we carried out a wide-ranging review of the formula, under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocations, aimed at producing a fairer means of allocating resources.
	The review was completed in autumn 2002, in advance of the current allocations to PCTs. The allocations were announced in December 2002 and were based on the new formula. The allocations, of 148 billiona cash increase of more than 30 per cent.were then made directly to local PCTs. In 2001, we proudly proclaimed in the NHS plan:
	by 2003, following the review of the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute NHS funding, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating resources to different parts of the country.
	I am equally proud to say we have delivered on that promise.
	The pattern of use of health services, and the relationship with socio-demographic factors, have changed in the past 10 years, so the element of the formula that reflects need has been updated to include better measures of deprivation. For the first time, the formula takes account of unmet need in relation to certain groups within the populationfor example ethnic minorities and socio-economically deprived groups.
	The new formula also deals with the variation in labour market pressures across the country. We need to able to get funds into areas where recruitment and retention difficulties are greatestand I am aware that there is a shortage of GPs in Barnsley.
	The new formula provides a better measure of health need in all areas. In order to get resources in the right place, we need to get the balance right between areas of high health need and those with high labour costs. For all these reasons, I am confident that the allocations to PCTs announced in 2002 set us on the right path.

Jeff Ennis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on his excellent speech, and associate myself with most, if not all, of what he said. I accept that the Minister sincerely wants to redress the current imbalance in Barnsley. However, in 2001before South Yorkshire secured objective 1 funding my constituency had a lower gross domestic product per capita than any other United Kingdom constituency. It still has one of the lowest levels of GDP per capita, and it also still has the highest level of disability: one in three households contains at least one disabled person. That is obviously a legacy of the former mining industry.
	My constituency is divided between Barnsley and Doncaster health authorities. Two thirds of my constituents live in Barnsley; the other third live in Doncaster. Doncaster enjoys funding up to the national average, while Barnsley's funding is 3 per cent. less than the national average. I am finding it increasingly difficult to explain to my constituents in Barnsley that my constituents in Doncaster enjoy much more generous health funding under the present Government. My hon. Friend says that the gap will not be closed until 2015. Will the Minister try to give me a better explanation, which I can convey to my Barnsley constituents, of the current funding inadequacies?

Stephen Ladyman: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, he will find that my later remarks explain the position.
	The new formula provides a better measure of health need in all areas. It is right to move from the old formula and distribute health funding to a new one, which will benefit Barnsley considerably in the long term. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees, however, that it would not be sensible to swing violently from one formula to another overnight, with all the negative consequences that that would bring for some areas. This is very relevant to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. We clearly need to phase in the change to allow PCTs to manage the consequences sensibly.
	That said, I assure my hon. Friends that we are committed to bringing PCTs to their target allocations as soon as is practicable. The pace-of-change policy is decided for each allocations round and the policy varies from round to round to take account of a number of factors, including the overall level of resources available and the priorities for their use. By next year200506no PCT will be more than 6 per cent under target, and PCTs will be constrained to a maximum reduction in distance from target each year of 2 per cent for any one year.
	The progress made to date in Barnsley is considerable, but has taken place in the context of a tight financial position. I do not dispute any of the points that my hon. Friends have made about the financial allocation to Barnsley PCT, but they should also be clear about the impact of our funding policy on Barnsley. The new formula's emphasis on directing funding towards areas with higher rates of deprivation, and our policy of moving all PCTs, mean that Barnsley PCT has received a greater increase in funding over the current three-year period than would otherwise have been the case. It amounts to a total increase of 64 million, equivalent to 31 per cent.
	I know that both my hon. Friends would like me to make a commitment here and now to future levels of funding for Barnsley PCT, and to increasing the pace of progress towards target allocation; but, as I am sure they will appreciate, I am not able to do so at this stage. We have received advice and recommendations from the advisory committee for the forthcoming allocations round, but my hon. Friends will have to wait until the new year for the precise details of funding for Barnsley. What I can say is that we are committed to increasing funding for health services throughout England and to moving all PCTs towards target, and that includes Barnsley. I can also say that, despite the tight financial position, health services in Barnsley are on track to deliver all the key targets set by the Department.
	The NHS improvement plan sets new key targets to build on the progress that has already been made in Barnsley and across England, not least the target that by 2008 patients will receive treatment within 18 weeks of referral by a GP. It is my job as a Minister to ensure that all PCTs are adequately funded to enable them to meet the next set of challenges. I hope that when PCT allocations for 200506 to 200708 are announced, they will bring welcome news for my hon. Friends and provide a platform for health services in Barnsley to build on their success.
	If I cannot give my hon. Friends any guarantee of funding tonight, I can give them another guarantee. All the Department's targetson accident and emergency waiting times, on overall treatment times, on choice and equity and on quality of servicewill be delivered everywhere, and that includes Barnsley. The NHS in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central will receive the resources and support necessary for the achievement of these challenging goals.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.